I think one of the guiding principles of the american left is that bigger government is always better. Of course, the staggering cost of big government and high regulation is driving manufacturing out of this country, so the left is destroying the economic foundation of its own existance. When we get to >50% of the people working for the government, who is going to pay the taxes?
Add to that , most leftists are intellectual snobs, who despise the working class that they supposedly admire.
The government workers? Technically, President Bush is a “government worker” too. I assume he pays his taxes just like everyone else. 
Cite?
You are joking, correct? In a bipartite (word?) system, the hard right gets washed into the right party, the hard left gets washed into the left party. His assertion were hardly as ridiculous as the “Them Demoncrats is all a bunch of baby-eatin’ wife swappers!” garbage. He just said the right relies on the votes of unsavories, which is true, although the left does the same.
I’ve seen this issue brought up repeatedly, and although I watched every debate and have tried to be as informed as possible, somehow this must have kept falling through the cracks for me in how it was represented to the other side. Can you explain it for me? I know Kerry served in Vietnam and later denouced the war, but is there more subtle nuances than that escaping me? For all I can gather (probably incorrectly) is that someone changed their opinion after the fact. Did he disown them or worse? I’d really like to grasp where this is coming from and why.
Thanks.
Never got that memo, Ralph, the one that says our position is always big government is better. You sure we told you that? Can’t recall that being one of the most essential talking points…lessee…forcing Eagle Scouts into gay marriages…check…dynamite Mt. Rushmore to make room for the Che Memorial…check…provide funding through the Endowment for the Arts for a all-porn version of Deuteronomy…check…no, no mention of big government always being better. Might want to check your source on that,
And it doesn’t much matter whether or not I admire the working class, I’m in the working class. Admiration doesn’t enter into it.
The “Fuck Middle America” sign is just classic.
As far as snobbery goes, I think the Republicans are just as guilty of it. Perhaps they aren’t intellectual snobs, but they certainly are when it comes to “moral values.”
After Kerry returned from VN, he not only protested the continuing war, but stated that the American soldiers there routinely engaged in various deplorable actions. He associated himself with people and organizations who alleged that the American POWs were war criminals who deserved what they got. Some of the vets, especially those who were beaten and tortured, kind of resented that when they found out about it later.
Since the KKK is a secret organisation it is sertainly not on the exit pole questionares (are you KKK and who did you vote for) But the demographics of the KKK fit with the demographics most likely to vote Bush. So I hold my assertation as logical if unciteable. KKK = white, fundamental christian, mainly southern state, high likelyhood of gun ownership, disslike of social minorities. Possibly some KKKers would vote for third party choices, but clearly in a choice between Bush or Kerry Bush would be more favourable to their phylosaphy and prejudices.
I admit to being not greatly informed about the KKK, and if you have any evidence that they are likely to be pro-homosexual rights, pro-choice, and or liberal, then I would consider my assumption of their Bush biass to be missplaced.
Gosh, I didn’t realize I was any of those things, except “white.”
Let’s see: Don Corleone had a cat. Don Corleone was a murderer. I have a cat. OMG! I’m a murderer!
BTW, it’s an exit poll, not a pole.
The difference is that the Republicans are embarrassed of the far right, and try to distance themselves from them.
The Democrats try to be inclusive of communists and hippies, and even former Klan members (current Senator Robert Byrd). Now the leadership of the Democrats is ex-hippies, ex-communists, ex-Klan members, etc. It’s hard to believe these people are completely cured of their whacko youth. A whacko Young Republican going to church three times a week and following the stock market religiously is less troubling to me.
_
_
Ah, hell, MLS, just when I’m ready to coast along, you gotta post a brown confection of half-truths and slanders. Ah, well, “once more into the breech, dear friends…”
Half-truth. He most assuredly did protest the war, and most assuredly did assert that American soldiers were involved in various deplorable actions. And they were. The word “routine” is where the question breaks down, since no one has any hard facts. The only deplorable acts we know about are the one’s we actually found out about. The best definition I can offer as to what Kerry meant by “routine” was that it was no longer shocking. A “Free Fire Zone” was routine, as well as being in direct contravention of the Geneva accords. Did I mention reprehensible?
Nonsense. The charge that Kerry accused all soldiers of war crimes is based on an inflated rationale: American policy was criminal, a soldier was by definition a criminal as a participant. But you miss the essential point: Kerry (and I, for that matter) was enraged that patriotic men sworn to service were made into war criminals when the country they swore to protect dishonored itself. The fresh faced kids drafted into the meat grinder didn’t leave here war criminals, and most didn’t come back war criminals. But some did, and the blame lies with the men who sent them there.
Check your sources. You are offering as incontrovertible fact testimony that is not as certain as you make it out to be. Be that as it may, the NV interrogators were brutal and cruel men who would have used anything to induce suffering. I am quite sure that you don’t mean to imply that this was done with Kerry’s approval and cooperation? I have no reason, thus far, to think you entirely beneath contempt.
No, elucidator, I certainly did not mean that Kerry approved of the NV’s cruel behavior to POWs. I was simply trying to be concise in explaining what the issue was. A lot of the bad feeling against him was guilt by association with Jane Fonda, who did refer to POWs as war criminals and who did IMHO give aid and comfort to their persecutors. But that’s a whole other line of discussion.
Ah, thank you both so much. Now I don’t feel completely lost in the lurch. I suppose then that I better be off to do some more research. 'Preciate it.
I know nothing of the KKK but other white supremacists are, just like the fringe left, government hating conspiracy theorists. Bush and Kerry won’t do, they pander to the wrong people and offer alliances to the wrong countries. To them, Neocon is a codeword (Hi Paul). They’ll be voting for a third party, probably an isolationist. Maybe Petrouka.
Before making comments about the KKK, you’d do well to educate yourself about them. The Fiery Cross by Wyn Craig Wade is an excellent text, tracing the Klan from 1865 to 1987.
Well…I’m not convinced they speak for themselves. If I were to read the slogans displayed on these pictures in a protest in France, I wouldn’t blink an eye.
Either you’re particularily oversentive, either the american public at large is.
It’s the point I’m trying to make (although maybe not very well). Politically I fall in the middle. My liberal friends think I am conservative, my conservative friends think I am liberal. I decide each issue on it’s own merits and up until this year I voted for the person not the party. It is events like this that push those of us in the center towards the right.
I can only echo what Mirasawa has already said. That and the Left tends to turn us moderates off because their such freakin hypocrites. Where do you think “Fuck Middle America” man is from? Assuming he’s not some kid on break from prep school (also likely) I’m guessing it’s middle America.
The other thing is that the extreme Left tends to be more fringe - non-functional drug addicts, unemployables, social rejects.
Wow, you truly know nothing of the left, do you? The most extreme leftists I’ve seen are not only employable, but tend to be the best at what they do. They aren’t drug addicts, they are either casual users, or just tolerant abstainers. And they are the most social, fun, easygoing people I know. The people you see pictured don’t necessarily represent even the truly left-wing part of the party. They probably don’t even represent themselves, they are just pissed off and have temporarily lost it.
But anyway, don’t worry about reading what I just said. It may be more comforting to you to just believe in your stereotypes, and I’d hate to make anyone uncomfortable.
Yawn.
So the Democrats embrace left wing nuts while the Republicans don’t embrace right wing nuts. That’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach, as long as you live in a parallel universe with no relationship to this one. Remember Swaggart saying that he would kill gay men if he met them? Remember Robertson, who is still Bush’s pal, smiling while Falwell explained that it was good that God had sent those wonderful Islamic terrorists to punish the evil liberals in the World Trade Center?
So the Democratic Party leaders are all ex hippies, ex commies, or ex KKK? Cite, please.
So the left wants a bigger federal government, do they? If so, why didn’t they vote for Bush? He’s done more to expand the size of government than any other person ever, or perhaps runs a close second behind FDR. And he’s very specifically promised that his new spending in the last four years will be minor compared to his new spending in the next four years.