Comments Posted By Still Liberal
Displaying 91 To 99 Of 99 Comments
Hillary Clinton is the female version of Jackie Robinson in presidential politics. She is indeed an historical figure, being the first woman to seriously contend for the American presidency. Like Robinson, she would not be in the position without an association with a white male (Branch Rickey for him, Bill Clinton for her). But also like Robinson, she has fought through the catcalls, overt hostility, threats and sabotage to establish herself as credible, capable and indominable in spirit. Jackie Robinson's sheer strength of character and baseball skills opened the way for the tremendous black atheletes in professional atheletics today and HRC is doing the same for women in politics. Someday a conservative woman will come through that door, a la Lady Thatcher, and it will be easier for her thanks in part to Hillary.
That said, I never rooted for the Dodgers and I don't vote for Hillary.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 14.05.2008 @ 14:47
POLL: AMERICA IS A SUCKY PLACE TO LIVE RIGHT NOW
Rick, if you ever run a little low on topics, it would be interesting to get your take on how conservatism moved from intelligent, committed politicans like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan (didn't agree with a lot of their positions, but admired their abilities and principled approaches to governance)to the people representing conservatism in politics today? You have discussed this in parts over time (religious overreach, etc.), but your perspective on this issue in one article would be valuable. Conservatism and liberalism both serve their purposes in America and I am one liberal who wishes for a better brand of conservative politicians. If we understand the mistakes made, then perhaps those can be avoided in the future.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 13.05.2008 @ 15:26
FEAR NOT - THE REPUBLIC WILL SURVIVE A PRESIDENT OBAMA
"You are dreaming. What is there in Obama’s past that gives you one iota of confidence that he can “change the political debate?” Those are words – meaningless drivel. McCain also says the tone has to change – fine. At least with him we have something of a track record of accomplishment in reaching across the aisle to work with democrats.
But do I believe he will be any more successful if elected? Nope.
Ed."
Dear Ed.
I did not in any way state that I thought Obama could accomplish anything. The point was only an additional explanation of his attractiveness to certain voters.
By the by, as a self-proclaimed historian, what would you have been seen in Abraham Lincoln's rather minimal history of success that indicated he would be the powerful force to hold the Union together during it's most trying time? Sketchier than Obama, from my reading. Sometimes the times make the man and sometimes the woman makes the times.
Me? I am voting for McCain. He is more the centrist liberal I am looking for.
Good point about Lincoln. I would say that no human being could have been prepared for that situation - and yes, I believe in the idea that many political/historical figures only show their true worth in desperate times.
btw - Lincoln would probably have lost t he election of 1860 if the Democrats were united. Douglas saw his vote split in the south with Breckenridge and the north with Bell.
ed.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 1.05.2008 @ 17:41
Obama's appeal is much more than being a good speechmaker. The right/left split, as it is currently being played out, has reduced politics to "the right is good, the left is bad; no, the left is good, the right is bad" posturing.
Thinking people are sick of this. Sometimes good conservative ideas are very necessary for the country and sometimes good liberal ideas are very necessary for the country. If you say that conseratives never have good ideas or that liberals never have good ideas, you are then part of the current problem. While admittedly oversimplistic, conservatism is primarily about maintaining the positive parts of the status quo and liberalism is primarily about changing the negative parts of the status quo. For a very simple example, conservatives see outward signs of solid patriotism as a good thing (think of the flag lapel pin flap), while liberals tend to be concerned about excessive displays of patriotism (again, the lapel pin flap)as a way of not dealing with current problems by overemphasizing the good.
Policy at any level is on a pendulum swing from right to left and then back again. This is necessary and not bad. Sometimes circumstances make bold changes in national policies necessary (Roosevelt's work to end the Depression) and sometimes holding on to what is current policy is necessary (Reagan's steadfastness in backing down and ending the Soviet Union). Now we just bash each other without respect or the even considering the possibility that our ideas may not be correct for the current circumstances.
Obama is an overt liberal, but one who hold out the possibility of changing the tone and intractedness of current political debate. He may or may not be able to do so, but acknowledgement of the need is a large part of the attraction to Sen. Obama.
Obama is an overt liberal, but one who hold out the possibility of changing the tone and intractedness of current political debate. He may or may not be able to do so, but acknowledgement of the need is a large part of the attraction to Sen. Obama.
You are dreaming. What is there in Obama's past that gives you one iota of confidence that he can "change the political debate?" Those are words - meaningless drivel. McCain also says the tone has to change - fine. At least with him we have something of a track record of accomplishment in reaching across the aisle to work with democrats.
But do I believe he will be any more successful if elected? Nope.
Ed.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 1.05.2008 @ 14:31
I think you meant Gary, IN is in the northwest part of Indiana, not the southeast. But the overall analysis is spot on.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 23.04.2008 @ 14:04
FINALLY, THE MEDIA 'DISCOVERS' OBAMA-AYERS RELATIONSHIP
jambrowski Said:
3:12 pmStill Liberal,
You will get no quarter here, life is based on choices we make, you are trying to equate a conscious/sober decision to TAKE HUMAN LIFE, and instill terror in the hearts of man with something like I got drunk and smoked pot or had sex with someone I wouldn’t have if sober or even I joined an organization without clearly understanding what they supported. Please don’t insult our intelligence with such a logical fallacy.So I can safely assume that your black and white thinking demands you to see George Bush as someone who made a choice to kill and terrorize Iraqis by the thousands (remember shock and awe, etc.)? And I don't see any intelligence to insult on your part. Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? My analogy was exactly on target, the difference between my example and your examples only differ in degree, not substance or logical construction. And by the way, as viciously stupid as Ayers bombings were, no one was killed, he did not TAKE A HUMAN LIFE.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 18.04.2008 @ 14:36
Why on earth would you read a thinker like Moran when you display yourself as only a knee jeck reactionary?
Maybe this will "change few minds about Barack Obama" because it is not considered important by the majority of people. Boards tend to be populated by a considerable variety of characters selected because of their influence and/or skills that can forward the work of the organization. They are typically selected by the leadership of the organization and they may or may not know each other or agree with each other. Is it not within possibility that the aforementioned Mr. Ayers has cleaned up his act since his gutless, illegal behaviors 40 years ago? The divisiveness of Viet Nam and the 60's lead many people to do desperate things to stop the draft, to stop civil rights violations and to stop the wholesale slaughter of Americans and Southeast Asians. Political leaders were being shot down like dogs. Protestors on campus were also shot by Americans in military uniforms for their dissent.
How many people would like to be held to the things they thought and did 40 years ago, when they were young? Not many.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 17.04.2008 @ 13:44
Many current conservatives admit to being quite liberal in their youth and likely did things they wouldn't wish to own now. Perhaps even illegal things. Does that mean their contributions now have no meaning or value currently? Well of course not. People do change, there is a redemptive power that allows change and atonement for the folly of youth. For which I am eternally grateful, as most of us are. Every politician comes into contact with people who have extremely checkered pasts. Ronald Reagan had 225 (!) members of his administration quit, were fired, arrested, indicted or convicted for breaking the law or violating the Ethics Code they had sworn to uphold. I hope I can assume that you do not think Ronald Reagan was unfit to hold office, that he was a sellout to a criminal element because of his associations with these people. Let he who is without sin . . ., well, you know the rest.
ONLY A REPUBLICAN COULD BE SO STUPID...
retire05:
I am a liberal, not a Democrat. I am willing to go after anyone's treasonous behavior. So again, why is this congressman discussing highly classified activity involving national security? If you support this kind of behavior, you are more of an ideologue that an American. Wrong is wrong, no matter the party affiliation.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 15.04.2008 @ 13:50
"U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a “snake oil salesman.”
He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama."The racial part speaks for it's self. What I want to know is why an irrelevant back bencher such as Geoff Davis was at a highly classified national security simulation and if it was so highly classified, WHY THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT IT?
The "boy" remark was just stupid. Revealing anything about our highly classified national security preparations for nuclear attacks is not just stupid, but treasonous.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 15.04.2008 @ 11:13
