# So, you consider yourself a Democrat, do you?

by one_raven
Tags: democrat
 PF Gold P: 7,125 No, I don't consider myself a democrat. Where did you get that idea?
Mentor
P: 22,007
 Quote by one_raven The Idealist Democrat is an oxymoron.
Actually, I consider an "idealist democrat" to be redundant. And that democrats have an overabundance of idealism is why I'm not a democrat.

P: 998

## So, you consider yourself a Democrat, do you?

 Quote by russ_watters Actually, I consider an "idealist democrat" to be redundant. And that democrats have an overabundance of idealism is why I'm not a democrat.
Actually, neo-con republicans are the idealists. They never plan for the worst while always hopeing for the best. Iraq---we will be greated with flowers so why plan for years of occupation and don't forget the initial projected cost and troop levels. The recent tragedy with Katrina. Plan for the best and hope for the best with no regard to how the real world operates wherein the worst is usually the end result. Russ, your an engineer you should understand things like safety factors and what not. Why don't the neo-cons understand these concepts as well?
 P: 2,891 There's nothing wrong with idealism.
P: 935
 Quote by faust9 Actually, neo-con republicans are the idealists. They never plan for the worst while always hopeing for the best.
That would make them optimist, not idealist.
P: 935
 Quote by Smurf There's nothing wrong with idealism.
So there is nothing wrong with communism? With Nazism? With *ism? The star being whatever the newest ideal is....

isms are ok if they are kept in moderation but too much of an ideal is likely not a very good thing.....
P: 728
 Republicans, at least, are honest about their intentions. They think they know what's best for you and are willing to ram it down your throats if they have to. That unfettered arrogance, in in fact, is part and parcel to the whole Republican ideal. Elect people to run your government and society, because they know better than you do.
Republicans are honest? When the GOP managed to convince people that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet, was that honest? When Valerie Plame was outed as political revenge, was that honest? When Swift Boat Veterans for Truth somehow convinced people that Kerry lied about his war record, was that honest? When Dick Cheney said that "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has WMDs," was that honest? When Michael Brown's resume was falsified in order to expedite his appointment to FEMA, was that honest? When George W. Bush claimed that "Brownie is doing one heckuva job," and then turned around and eviscerated his position, was that honest?

 Why am I not a Democrat? The Democratic Party has become party of the fat, the lazy, the complacent, the rich and the selfish wanting their Government to take care of them.
Basically, you've made two statements here: that Democrats are either rich and fat, or they are lazy and looking for handouts. Ignoring the fact that Republicans are, on the whole, richer than Democrats, I don't think that most people are looking for handouts. I'd hardly consider the people who work 3 jobs and only make $20K a year lazier than the average white, middle-class male whose parents paid for their college tuition and allowed him to drink his way to a marketing degree. Why should the latter deserve to be paid more? Because he had richer parents? Also, why should big business get handouts in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?  They rally behind this Senator and that Congressman and lift people up onto their shoulders hoping for another JFK to lead them. JFK was perhaps the greatest president this country has ever known. Those that refer to him as "a great leader", though, desecrate his memory, degrade his legacy and debase the party ideals. JFK did not lead people; he inspired people to lead themselves. Ha ha, that's funny. JFK was a mediocre president at best. Most historians wouldn't even place him in the top 10, and he usually barely cuts the top 20. He was behind that horrible Bay of Pigs incident, and though he averted the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was also partly responsible for it. Oh yeah, he escalated our involvement in Vietnam.  PF Gold P: 1,554 You have some points there one_raven. I personally have always been registered Independent. At this time I am very anti-GOP because it has gone way too far to the right, particularly with the religious fundamentalism. My personal belief is that criticism cannot be too strong, as this is what it will take to get the pendulum to swing back into balance (like fighting fire with fire). If/when things normalize, I hope to return to more kindly thoughts toward the GOP. I don't know that I see the Dems as idealists (BTW, the one's who are for hand-outs are the poor minorities who don't vote at all), but in general I see them to be more progressive than Republicans, who typically support the status quo--which is okay unless it is very bad like it is now. In all fairness, the platforms of both parties have become confusing. And many so-called Dems voted for Bush in 2004, but mostly because of terrorism fear-mongering and concern about Iraq. Well at least they voted -- Most people in our country are apolitical, and don't bother to contribute at all. P: 2,891  Quote by Townsend So there is nothing wrong with communism? With Nazism? With *ism? The star being whatever the newest ideal is.... That's a ridiculous argument. Feminism? Pacifism? Capitalism? Tell me town, what exactly is so bad about Buddhism? You don't like Judaism either I guess? *Gasp* does that mean you like anti-semitism? No, no, you don't like any form of idealism. Are you hungry? Here, have some lunch, today's special: Magnetism covered organisms with a globilised evolutionism garnish and a side of Atheism (that's atheism, not agnostism) and for an extra Wahhabism fifty you get a glass of utilitarianism along with it. Tell you what, I'll even throw in the journalism for free, but only if you buy the republicanism too, I've seen you looking at it! You know what we call you're ideology townsend? We call it oppositism. Or, my personal favorite, conformism.  isms are ok if they are kept in moderation but too much of an ideal is likely not a very good thing..... Yeah I bet you like music too. P: 935  Quote by SOS2008 You have some points there one_raven. I personally have always been registered Independent. At this time I am very anti-GOP because it has gone way too far to the right, particularly with the religious fundamentalism. My personal belief is that criticism cannot be too strong, as this is what it will take to get the pendulum to swing back into balance (like fighting fire with fire). If/when things normalize, I hope to return to more kindly thoughts toward the GOP. I don't know that I see the Dems as idealists (BTW, the one's who are for hand-outs are the poor minorities who don't vote at all), but in general I see them to be more progressive than Republicans, who typically support the status quo--which is okay unless it is very bad like it is now. In all fairness, the platforms of both parties have become confusing. And many so-called Dems voted for Bush in 2004, but mostly because of terrorism fear-mongering and concern about Iraq. Well at least they voted -- Most people in our country are apolitical, and don't bother to contribute at all. Oh come on SOS2008....I know you want to be right wing. After all right is the new left and I know how important fashion is to you. You don't want to be walking around looking all liberal when everyone knows conservative is in, do you? P: 239  Quote by Smurf There's nothing wrong with idealism. I think there is nothing wrong with having ideal, but being an idealist (in my own estimation, anyway) means that you are aiming to achieve your golas rather than simply using them as guiding principles. While in your own life that is just fine, in the realm of politicas and progression through reaching common ground it is horribly restrictive to say the least. By a Democrat, who is supoposed to be representing the nation as a whole, "sticking to his guns" he has effectively cut off about half the population from being represented. "HA HA! YOU LOST! I GET MY WAY!!" That is a Republican view, not a Democrat view. Thus the far left Idealist Democrats are hypocrites.  Quote by Manchot Republicans are honest? When the GOP managed to convince people that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet, was that honest? When Valerie Plame was outed as political revenge, was that honest? When Swift Boat Veterans for Truth somehow convinced people that Kerry lied about his war record, was that honest? When Dick Cheney said that "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has WMDs," was that honest? When Michael Brown's resume was falsified in order to expedite his appointment to FEMA, was that honest? When George W. Bush claimed that "Brownie is doing one heckuva job," and then turned around and eviscerated his position, was that honest? Please try and read what I wrote rather than simply jumping up and responding to your assumptions about me while shooting from the hip like a defensive, reactionary, mindless robot. I did not say Republicans are honest. I would not argue that anything above was honest. Read what I said in context. Details are important, but taken out of context they are usually worthless. What I SAID was...  Republicans, at least, are honest about their intentions. They think they know what's best for you and are willing to ram it down your throats if they have to. That unfettered arrogance, in in fact, is part and parcel to the whole Republican ideal. Elect people to run your government and society, because they know better than you do. This refers to the Republican Party ideal that the Federal Government should continue to be based on the ideal of a Republic. Do you know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? Do you realize that the Federal Government is NOT a Democracy? Just in case you do not know: In a Republic the government is made up of people (usually elected officials) who are to LEAD, rather than REPRESENT (as opposed to a Democracy) the people. So, in context, I said the Republicans think they know what's best for you, regardless of what YOU think. Therefore when Republicans try and force people to live by their rules, it is not a surprise. Their intentions are to LEAD the people, and they make no bones about it. They fully admit to it in their own party ideals. When, on teh other hand, a Democrat tries to LEAD people, he is betraying his party ideals, because he is supposed to be FOLLOWING and REPRESENTING people rather than LEADING them.  Quote by Manchot Basically, you've made two statements here: that Democrats are either rich and fat, or they are lazy and looking for handouts. No I didn't. I said nothing about handouts. I said they are expecting the government to take care of them, as opposed to being part of the government themselves, THUS the Republican notion of government.  Quote by Manchot I'd hardly consider the people who work 3 jobs and only make$20K a year lazier than the average white, middle-class male whose parents paid for their college tuition and allowed him to drink his way to a marketing degree.
Please point out where I said that.
If you want to discuss what I said, By all means, I am willing.
That why I posted this on a public forum.
If you want to lambast me for whatever pre-conceived notion you have of who I am, based solely on your own lacking reading comprehension skills, don't waste your time, because I will not bother amusing you.

 Quote by Manchot Why should the latter deserve to be paid more? Because he had richer parents? Also, why should big business get handouts in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?
Please point out where I said that.
If you want to discuss what I said, By all means, I am willing.
That why I posted this on a public forum.
If you want to lambast me for whatever pre-conceived notion you have of who I am, based solely on your own lacking reading comprehension skills, don't waste your time, because I will not bother amusing you.

 Quote by SOS2008 You have some points there one_raven.
Thanks.

 Quote by SOS2008 I personally have always been registered Independent. At this time I am very anti-GOP because it has gone way too far to the right, particularly with the religious fundamentalism. My personal belief is that criticism cannot be too strong, as this is what it will take to get the pendulum to swing back into balance (like fighting fire with fire). If/when things normalize, I hope to return to more kindly thoughts toward the GOP.
I see benefits and drawbacks to both Political Ideologies (religious and cultural standpoints not withstanding).
I was a Republican for a little while.
I was a Democrat for a while.
Now I am in favor of abolishing Political Parties (or at least the power of them) altogether.

 Quote by SOS2008 I don't know that I see the Dems as idealists (BTW, the one's who are for hand-outs are the poor minorities who don't vote at all), but in general I see them to be more progressive than Republicans, who typically support the status quo--which is okay unless it is very bad like it is now.
Not all Dems are Idealists, but the further to any direction you go, the less apt you are to compromise.
The further you get from compromise, the further you get from representing the people as a whole and the further you get from any real progress.

 Quote by SOS2008 In all fairness, the platforms of both parties have become confusing. And many so-called Dems voted for Bush in 2004, but mostly because of terrorism fear-mongering and concern about Iraq. Well at least they voted -- Most people in our country are apolitical, and don't bother to contribute at all.
P: 2,891
 Quote by one_raven I think there is nothing wrong with having ideal, but being an idealist (in my own estimation, anyway) means that you are aiming to achieve your golas rather than simply using them as guiding principles. While in your own life that is just fine, in the realm of politicas and progression through reaching common ground it is horribly restrictive to say the least. By a Democrat, who is supoposed to be representing the nation as a whole, "sticking to his guns" he has effectively cut off about half the population from being represented. "HA HA! YOU LOST! I GET MY WAY!!" That is a Republican view, not a Democrat view. Thus the far left Idealist Democrats are hypocrites.
I'm going to write a book about brainwashing in mass media. I think I'll call it "The art of connotation".
P: 935
 Quote by Smurf You know what we call you're ideology townsend? We call it oppositism. Or, my personal favorite, conformism.
I am not optimistic all. I don't trust the government to do anything right. That is why I like capitalism more than the other isms. In aggregate capitalism requires a lot less isms than socialism or well...any others I can think of...

I don't want anarchy because you have no sense of monetary security....however I believe less is more...

And I am not a conformist
P: 2,891
 Quote by Townsend I am not optimistic all. I don't trust the government to do anything right. That is why I like capitalism more than the other isms. In aggregate capitalism requires a lot less isms than socialism or well...any others I can think of... I don't want anarchy because you have no sense of monetary security....however I believe less is more... And I am not a conformist
Not optimism, oppositism. An evolution from dualism. The idea that "Things should be in moderation" populated by the slogan "everything in moderation" relies on the ideology that there is a moderate point between any two given positions. Therefore, the two positions must be in opposition to eachother, or opposites. This is an ideology, and self-disproves moderationism.

And you are to a conformist.
PF Gold
P: 1,554
 Quote by Townsend Oh come on SOS2008....I know you want to be right wing. After all right is the new left and I know how important fashion is to you. You don't want to be walking around looking all liberal when everyone knows conservative is in, do you?
We could do a poll. I think someone recently referred to me as Ms. liberal something or other. I just try to call it like I see it.
 P: 2,891 Personally I see so-called 'independants' and 'moderates' as thinking they have some advantage in not declaring anything. They're just lazy and weak.
PF Gold
P: 1,554
 Quote by Smurf Personally I see so-called 'independants' and 'moderates' as thinking they have some advantage in not declaring anything. They're just lazy and weak.
One of the points made in the OP. Being a centrist does not mean having no political positions. I'm sure people in this forum have a pretty good idea where I stand on a few things. I agree with the OP that the center actually represents the majority of the people. I take it you prefer extremism?

Edit: BTW - Independent does not necessarily mean moderate, such as candiates like Nader who is very much to the left. I'm all for more than two parties, and why I hope the Libertarian party grows--even though I don't agree with several positions in the platform.

 Related Discussions Current Events 17 Current Events 30 Current Events 40 Current Events 24 Current Events 0