If someone who actually runs campaigns for a living, as a profession, is asking you to come up with statistics, there is very little doubt in my mind that he is either (a) not involved with serious candidates or (b) putting you on. In fact, if he’s not asking you to actually turn out people or raise money, he’s most likely just trying to give you a polite “no thank you.”
So you don’t know who is responsible for the underlying laws, you don’t know whether a judge was making up his own law or interpreting one on the books, and, well, you don’t really know anything about the law in question, other than you’re being sure that lib’rals – or lib’ralizm – is at fault. That’s some real keen thinking. Why are you not blaming all this on Communists, Red Soxs fans, or Catholics? You seem to have about as much reason to blame them as to blame liberals.
For some theories as to why, see here. Maybe you have another theory yourself? In reality, there is no such thing as an “average American”, and polls can only tell us so much (big, diversified country and all that). It really depends on how the poll question (or the debate) is framed. Probably worthy of its own debate here.
BUT, if we are talking about shifts, there has been no discernable shift in the US electorate since at least 1972 (per the same ongoing polling results). How would you explain that?
Bush in 2000 doesn’t tell us anything, because he ran on a more moderate platform than what he actually did once elected. Agreed?
Bush in 2004 is more complicated. Changing Presidents during a perceived “war”, the diebold controversy, John Kerry’s personal failings as a candidate… another debate there too. No simple answers.
But to get back to your point, you would be hard pressed to find poll results to prove that the US has shifted to the right since at least 1972, or that the majority agrees with the current (right leaning) agenda. They didn’t and they don’t. Your explanation for that?
If not nationwide polls, then what is your criteria?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘shifts’. First off, you are making an assumption here that I think the US has shifted right…I don’t think that. If we are talking about political shifts I’d say that its pretty obvious that there has been a shift away from the Democrats over all at a national level and towards the Republicans. Why? Well, I think its because the Republican’s made an attempt to be more in step with the majority of American’s…while the Democrats didn’t.
A better weather vein (IMO) is how the Republicans made gains in the house and senate even during Clinton’s presidency. Another (again IMO) is the success of Clinton…who ran on a moderate platform. And the fact that he is the only two term Dem president in…well, quite a while (Kennedy I suppose though he didn’t live long enough to enjoy it). He’s also one of the most popular presidents, getting votes (especially in his second term) from the left AND center (as well as even some from the mild right).
Well, had I made the case that the US had shifted right then this might be relevant…but I didn’t, nor am I one of those who think this is the case (look to the left for folks who think the US has shifted right…I’m more in the center). Again, my explaination for the success of the Republican’s overall on the national stage is that they have moved themselves into a position that more closely aligns with the majority of American’s than the Dems have…simple as that. Of course, with this majorly fucked up presidency that may not be the case anymore…some indications of this may be seen in '06. But my thoughts are that IF the Dems make back some ground it will be more a negative response to Republican rule than it will be a shinning endorsement of the Dems (tired, old) platform.
Well, if you think so. I already said the best evidence was the growing control the Republican’s have shown over the past few decades in the House and Senate. I think thats a better indication, as the Presidency is usually more a popularity contest. However, looking at the Presidency I’d say that except for Clinton (a moderate) the Dems haven’t done so hot there either.
But this says more about your personal opinion than the Democratic platform, or current Democratic party positions, or poll results. Surely you are not using only personal anecdote for your opinions here?
Did you even read my cite, or are you on some kind of partisan auto-pilot?
As Dorothy Parker said, “You can lead a whore to culture, but you can’t make her think.”
That’s a great rant, but as has already been alluded to earlier, which you got whooshed on, the next election after 2005 is in 2009, thus making much of your preparation for the 2010 election quite lame.
The polls don’t show what exactly (and where are they, btw)? That the Republican’s have made gains in the House and Senate? Since thats the statement I made, how do the polls deny, well, reality? Or are you talking about simply my speculation as to why? If so…well, it was my speculation. As to ‘the polls’ you are seemingly using…I’ll get to that in a sec. Of course, your own article says ’ It doesn’t matter what people think about issues, it only matters what they vote on. In this respect, Bush is telling the truth when he says he doesn’t listen to the polls. He realizes that on a whole host of issues, he doesn’t have to.’ If we take that as gospel, then, well, your polls don’t really matter. :smack:
Thats nice that your polls (and the article you cited that expounds on it, but doesn’t actually show the polls afaict) doesn’t agree with me but has a much more complex (and to my mind partisan) explaination of why the Republican’s are on top. Its all about how evil and scheming the Republican’s are (I loved the Louis XIV reference)…and I’m supposed to take this completely serious AND just accept it all. It has nothing to do with the Republican’s strategy of trying to reach out to the center, and everything to do with how the Republican’s can trick or manipulate the American people into voting differently then they would or should have if their minds weren’t so befuddled.
Surely I am and I didn’t say otherwise. You asked me why I thought things were the way they were (while trying to stuff me into a position about the country going right that I don’t hold)…so I gave it to you. I read your cite and while I found it interesting I was far from convinced. Sorry, I can see that you really like the thing, but it had too partisan a feel for me to be completely won over. Besides, its one series of polls and one interperatation…and I didn’t even get to SEE the poll results, just the interperatation by what I found to be a partisan source. I don’t usually buy something that easily.
Yes, I read it…I was interested but unconvinced. As to being on partisan auto-pilot that would be hard to do, since I’m not a Republican partisan. To my mind its all shit, whether your golden boys win or the Republican’s do…it means little to me as from my perspective both parties are nearly indistinguishable (except the Dems seem more incompetent, at least with winning elections).
I will say that I didn’t REALLY think about my answers that well before I gave them so the ‘autopilot’ thing could be accurate…this is the Pit after all, not GD. Not that I take things all that seriously in GD either, but I do tend to pay more attention there than here.
And Jim Jones said (to paraphrase), ‘Here, have some koolaid!’. I think this is apt with reguards to our little discussion here since you assumed that I’d simply swollow whole your cite and got miffed when I was skeptical. Bottom line, you show me what is basically an opinion piece (btw, was the link to the actual polls in the article? I didn’t see it), and expect me to drink the koolaid…then get pissed when I don’t.
I’m rather sorry I bothered to answer your original questions as well, as you are obviously simply looking for a fight here.
In this particular case, the man has evidently paid his debt to society and has had no further problem in the last twenty years. Further, the child wasn’t taken away from him; it was taken away from its mother, who insofar as I know has had no problem with the law.
However, the basis for my having brought the issue up in the first place was to try to illustrate one of the reasons why “liberalism” has become a dirty word in U.S. politics. It is almost always the case, in my observation, that when some judge issues a ruling that flies in the face of something that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct throughout the country’s entire history, and takes rights away from individuals and puts new authority over individual lives in the hands of the government, it is almost always a liberal judge who is the culprit.
Now, whether this particular judge is a liberal or not is pretty much beside the point. The real point is that liberalism has gotten such a bad name as a result of such things as judicial activism that rulings such as this one are perceived as being liberal-based, whether they actually are or not.
Well, it’s a “logical connection” I have seen repeated over and over again.
My biggest complaint about liberalism isn’t so much the goals of liberalism but the way liberals go about trying to achieve them. They are far, far, far too willing to throw the baby (read “logic” and “temperance”) out with the bath water in order to bring about their ends. Impassioned do-gooders are dangerous because they lose perspective and want a solution to whatever they’re currently incensed about at virtually any and all costs. This propensity on the part of liberals in this country is the very basis for the term “knee-jerk liberal.”
What say you give me infinitesimal and I’ll give you “athiest”? It would be like offsetting boo-boos in the heat of the moment that cancel each other out and we can start afresh.
However, I’m a guy, so technically you’re still one-up on me in the error department.
Not at all. You didn’t acknowledge my cite in your previous reply, and even now, you question the results of the polls. Do you not believe the accuracy of that article, or the polls it references? Why?
And if so, what are you basing your opinion on?
You admit it is personal, but I still don’t understand what you base it on - is it only people you know? I’m sure you understand why that cannot count as data here.
The truth is, the Democrats have been fighting and speaking out against all of the facism for the past 6 years, but nobody was listening. Things have finally gotten so bad that people have finally started to turn away from the nationalists and begun to listen to the patriots.
And of course there are those who feel that denying gays civil rights is so much more important. Or even two men or two women who want to take care of a child. In these weeks, where Rosa Parks is universally praised, I find that even more poignant than usual.
No, that would be pretty much exactly the point. You reference this story to buttress your theory about liberal judges. If the judge is not liberal, it does not buttress your theory. The fact that the ACLU is helping defend the couple in question suggests that, if this case is an example of what’s wrong with this country, liberal activists are part of what’s right with this country.
I say that conservative idiots are what’s wrong with this country. My proof? There was this case recently where a guy who’d paid his debt to society had his child stolen from him by a conservative judge, because of hysterical “tough on crime” paranoia. Were it not for us liberals, the poor guy would have nobody to defend him.
