Polarization of voters

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, November 11, 2003 | By Martin L. Gross

[JohnHuang2]

Howard Dean's statement that the Democrats need the vote of white Southerners to win the White House

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Quote of the Day by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN

[poet]

"The demise of the Democrat Party will be better for the health of America than the demise of the Soviet Union and world communism!!! ~by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN"

That is an incredible statement! It is an indictment of Every democrat voter. FTR, I am registered as an independant who used to vote For capital R republicans.

The communist party, as a whole, was/is more dangerous than a few powerful politicans of either party. Communism would not allow such a statement to be uttered or written without severe repercussions.

In a relatively Free Society ( which is the one we live in), we can remove politicians through the ballot box while in a communist society it would take an armed revolution.

The quote of the day holds no water.

P.S. Both parties are culpable as respects the demise of honor, integrity and liberty. Just read the "patriot act" and then tell me the democrats alone are responsible.

[Rob45and2]

As a rule of thumb, anyone who tells you to ”just read the Patriot Act” has not read it themselves. With the exception of internet surveillance there is nothing proposed that hasn’t been used by law enforcement for 20 years. In fact, most complaints about the act have no basis in reality.
The ACLU has brought suit in Florida to stop the act with a single instance of any individuals rights being violated because of it.

[longtermmemmory]

It must be interesting to see the stats on the "polarization" and how voters are breaking. I am willing to bet that the democrat party has a serious problem with white and straight men.

[poet]

It's the Future danger of Section 802 which has no expiration date. This obscenity in the hands of clinton types as respects the conjunctive clauses 5A, 5B (i) & (ii) and C that poses this danger. And yes, I have read the act and also other opinions by doing a Google search.

Only people who want "security" at any cost accept this act because a republican signed it into law. If the lowlife clinton had done it, well, you know the mantra.

FYI, the original acronym was USAPA. It was changed to "patriot" to give it the impression that it had something to do with patriotism which is does not! Here is what the "patriot" acronym means " Providing Appropiate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", clever use of semantics don't you think? As for the meaning of USAPA, add Uniting & Strengthening, etc,;.

There are legal scholars who say all that had to be done was to add "domestic terrorism" to existing law, therefore, this draconian law is not needed. Finally, in view of the fact that to date we have still NOT locked down our borders, do you really believe there is a "war" on terrorism or is the word being being used selectively? Why is Saudia Arabia getting a free ride? Only when our borders are closed will I believe there is a real War on terrorism.

I leave you with the following quote:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."-- H.L. Mencken

[Semper]

I am willing to bet that the democrat party has a serious problem with white and straight men.

Unless they are trial lawyers.

[Semper]

"The demise of the Democrat Party will be better for the health of America than the demise of the Soviet Union and world communism!

Not quite. That gives the democrat party WAY too much credit. Also, the democrat party has provided many very good Republicans i.e. Ronald Reagan and most of the southern Republicans.

We do need political upheaval however. The contamination of our whole political process by special interest MONEY is our most pressing problem. The demise of both major parties would more likely give us the opportunity for better political health.

[Semper]

My post #7 was for you.

[poet]

"We do need political upheaval however"

I know you mis-directed your #7 to me, however:

IMO, what we need is polarization that places Constitutional Conservatives in one party and Liberals/ Moderates/Neo-Conservatives in one party.
Having a mix of political philosophies in parties allows a takeover of a given party as has happened to the republican party and democrat parties.

In the republican case we have "pretend" conservatives and in the democrat party we have a takeover of the leadership by leftists/socialists. In both instances, they spend, spend, spend & tax, tax, tax except the neo-cons give us an occasional cookie of small tax breaks, but, on the whole, all we get from both parties is "crumbs".

Consider the obscene NEW spending of the administration and their acceptance of the democrat's domestic aganda, i,e,; Their "Education" bill, Adding new airport security personnel (more than 60,000 New employees) on the taxpayers backs instead of turning it over to private enterprise, the acceptance of the dem's positions of giveing lawbreakers amnesty and citizenship, their silence on California's driver licenses for illegals, etc,. etc.,.

Bottom line, we have Different names, Different approaches, Same results. Here in Kaleefornia, the "conservatives" abandoned their announced "core beliefs" and voted for a guy who is diametrically opposed not only to their supposed core beliefs, but, also the Republican Platform, just so they could have a victory. Can you say, political whores?

[Semper]

..voted for a guy who is diametrically opposed not only to their supposed core beliefs, but, also the Republican Platform, just so they could have a victory.

"Just a victory" may be an understatment when you consider the alternative of Davis remaining in office. Even if improvement comes in small steps, it is better than continuing to go in the wrong direction. However, we still must wait to see what and how Arnold does.

But whatever, California is a bad model to use for any political argument since it is so screwed up.

[Semper]

what we need is polarization that places Constitutional Conservatives in one party and Liberals/ Moderates/Neo-Conservatives in one party.

I'm far from convinced that polarization is a good idea. That's how we got into a civil war which killed more Americans than all our other wars combined.

Also, another political view would put Constitutional Conservatives, Neo-Conservatives and Moderates in one party and Liberals in the other. Neo-Conservatives and Moderates are certainly not for socialism and Liberals are.

I like things much more as they were when the Constitution was conceived: no political parties.

But here is my solution to the current problem: Political contributions should be allowed only from those who can vote for a candidate. That would eliminate much of the corruption. A union, corporation, PAC, political party, etc. can not vote, therefore they could not contribute to a candidate. Right now anyone can contribute to any political race in any location. Why should I be able to influence a local election in another state? According to the Constitution, all elections are supposed to be local; that has been corrupted and needs to be corrected. Money controls electons and therefore the money should come from local individuals only - with complete and total disclosure.

[longtermmemmory]

In my own defense, there is a big difference between lawyers who are members of the ABA and those of us who actually practice and refuse to join.