Well I'm here to inform you I have read your "stuff" and you seem to be nothing short of a far left liberal.

ok...here's what i wrote yesterday...btw, dr guy and i found lots of common ground...does that make him a far left liberal?





If I Started My Own Political Party
My "Traditional Progressive" Party

By Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Posted Monday, September 25, 2006 on Thoughts, Views, Opinions and Rants
Discussion: US Domestic

This morning, I was thinking "what platform planks would MY political party have?"

This is what I came up with in my head this morning. Keep in mind, these are platform planks, not policies or plans. they are not minutely detailed or specific.

Tax Policy....taxes should be minimalized and simplified. Not endorsing a totally "flat tax" but the tax code should be simple and universal. The poor do not pay taxes, except "use taxes" such as sales tax. Fairness is key.

Foreign Policy...America First. But we are also not here to make enemies. Allies are important, and in some cases, vital. But it is America's self interest that shall prevail when push comes to shove. Let other countries handle their own affairs. Only involve America when requested or when it directly involves America's self interest. Always help when we can. Reach out to other nations where opportunities exist.

Health Care...All American children are inherently covered by their citizenship. Universal coverage is the ultimate goal, but the needs of children, followed by seniors, comes 1st and foremost. Health care cannot be denied to any child by anyone licensed to practice in the US.

Abortion Rights....Roe v Wade is established law. Americans recognize the right of a woman to make her own health care decisions to a point. Americans also realize that at some point the rights of a developing child in the womb must be recognized. After a scienifically agreed to "point" in which the fetus is considered a viable human being, the woman who chooses to terminate the pregnancy must agree to sterilization or a suitable way to ensure society won't be burdened with irresponsible behavior infringing on others rights over and over. Things happen beyond our control in life and bad judgement happens. repeated abortions go beyond the realm of "a mistake" and into the realm of irresposible behavior. women are not criminals for making this choice, but the choice cannot be made without consequence.

Euthanasia...If a person is deemed viably "sane" by an independent body, a person does have the right to terminate their own life and may be assisted if necessary.

Drug Laws....Marijuana should be legalized, regulated and taxed. More emphisis should be put into more effective means of education and rehabilitation rather than law enforcement. Law enforcement should be emphasized in connection with large scale (kingpin) dealers and cartels of hard narcotics and meth amphetamine. More research should be spent in the areas of alternative fuels, materials, nutrition and pharmecutical values of marijuana and hemp.

Immigration....Amnesty is not acceptable, but neither is impossible systems of deportation and fencing. Businesses that employ illegal aliens must be cracked down on and penalized. this will create much less incentive for people to cross as they do now. Border patrol must be increased and modernized. Mexico must put more effort into improving domestic economic conditions and helping with border security in a tangible way. Paths to citizenship must be rigorous and fair. An emphisis on families will be important to smoothly integrate the millions of people living illegally in this nation.

Gay Marriage...Not for the idntical title as it only invokes emotions, but for the evening of rights and recognition by the state as a domestic partnership with the same rights and responsibilities as a traditional marriage.

Church & State...No official religion. Religious holidays, cerimonies and traditions which are not overtly offensive to others and promote harmony throughout all peoples can be acknowledged by the state. the state must give equal time / space to any legitimate group within a juristiction if requested and the above conditions are met. all religions may be practiced in america outside of goverment owned property.

Social Security....Social Security has worked and is the most successful public system ever created. Social Security will not be privatized and must be kept out of "for profit" interests. It is a public trust which must be upheld. Suggestions for improvement must have the forementioned requirements.

Electoral College...is obsolete. 1 person, 1 vote.

Environment /Global Warming...Is real and must be invested in to ensure our children's futures. Envormental concerns are to be considered at all times and given proper weight against other factors.

Freedom of Press...Must be restored to where journalists do not feel threatened by the goverment as it has in the recent past.

Iraq....There is no military solution there. Iraq must stand up on it's own. We can assist if requested, and vital. But for now, plans should be directed towards redeployment in the region to better serve America's overall interests in the War on terror. Humanitarian, diplomatic and consulting services should continue as needed and can be afforded.

Campaign Financing....No official position as of yet. still hearing debate. same for other voter issues such as electronic voting and fraud. all must be dealt with but still debating which way to go.

Stem Cell Research...Sides with science and will take science's reccomendations on progress in this area.

Maybe i'll add or change this up a bit after some further thought.

Wanna join the party?

dr guy's responses...

Not going to join your party, but I like half your positions

after i asked "which 1/2?"

Tax, Foreign, Euthanasia, drug (not keen on the tax part, but if you have to have a tax on anything, might as well be that as well), Immigration, Gay Unions (1/2 - get government out of marriage - that is religious and they have no business in it - let them have Civil unions for tax, health and estate purposes), and Church and State.

Sean seems to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as a "cocktail party psychologist" - funny, that.

Dr. Guy agrees with a few of your positions, so what? I don't think all of the things you listed are not valid. However, I have been reading your posts today and they all pretty much seem anti-Bush, pro-democrat.

I also think it's funny that the MSM inventors of media bias have taken to calling it the "Fox effect." You'd think they'd have the balls to at least take credit where credit is due.

Sean seems to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as a "cocktail party psychologist" - funny, that

only when the shoe fits

Dr. Guy agrees with a few of your positions, so what? I don't think all of the things you listed are not valid.

thank you for pointing out the difference between you and I...while I try to find common ground, you just keep spinning, attacking and hacking.

everyone has biases, there are times i lean left, times i lean right...and yes, i have disagreed with most of this administration's policies, but that hardly makes me "pro-democrat" except in some small mind's black & white world. i'm pro progress, whether the idea or policy comes from any side of the political spectrum. here's one for ya dog....i think the 1st 2 years of clinton's presidency wsasn't very successful...not because of anything in particlular, but because the dems had all the power then, and it didn't help the country. same thing when carter was in office. not that carter didn't do any good, but the severe swing of power in his favor hurt policy making, as it has with the bush admin. i believe in "balance of power" and if you really read my stuff, you would know that underlying theme. neither side has a lock on good ideas or bad ones, but the other side brings out the best ideas from both sides more often than not when both have a piece of the power pie.

thank you for pointing out the difference between you and I...while I try to find common ground, you just keep spinning, attacking and hacking.

Nobody is attacking you. If you can't take the heat of a political forum without whining about it, then get out.

but ya know what is really funny? when ABC and Disney were selling out to the administration and putting out their fake, made-up pack of lies presented falsely as a "docudrama" all the right wing bush loyalists claimed "everyone knows it's fiction and it's their right to use "artistic license" in telling their story." now, after the documentary, hacks like chris wallace are using the documentary and faux emails as an excuse to smuggly attack the former president as if they were facts....that's funny.

Nobody is attacking you. If you can't take the heat of a political forum without whining about it, then get out.


oh pUHLEEEEAaaase!!!!!!!!! get over yourself, i've been doing this a long time and pointing out your juvenile and parroted attack lines and methods is hardly whining. it's simply stating facts. facts that you keep dodging in each response as you begin your next lil bombing.

you are just another bully behind a keyboard...and now ya got someone who can kick your ass with facts and it's driving you nuts, i've dealt with your ilk for decades, not only online , but more often in person...quick island dog, scan all my posts and look for some lil tidbit you can nitpick as if it matters.

you know that's exactly what you'll do as soon as you end reading this sentence.

hacks like chris wallace are using the documentary and faux emails as an excuse to smuggly attack the former president as if they were facts....that's funny.

Wallace didn't attack him. He asked valid questions and Clinton went into a fake "outrage". I see it seems you have something against Fox News, because this small interview has nothing on the attacks other news agencies have done against Bush and his administration.

ABC and Disney did sell out....to the democrats. After the whining and crying of the Clinton people they took out scenes. Although the movie was "dramatic", most of the story was true that didn't failed at terrorism.

btw, dr guy and i found lots of common ground...does that make him a far left liberal?

I have been accused of worse.

I have been accused of worse.


lol,,,haven't we all, lol. once again, i very much enjoyed your feedback yesterday guy. when we (in a general human sense, not me and you in particular nec.) can find common ground, i believe it helps us understand one another. that might sound like some "wacko-hippie" idea, but from my experience, it's true.

that was something i thought both clinton and reagan were good at, not only as president, but in life. one example...i remember reading reagan's book of letters that came out a few years ago and being impressed with his role in protecting some unfairly targeted actors from the mccarthy commision. his "the only good commie is a dead commie" line got blown out of context and he was painted as assisting them when he was really keeping their claws from getting to some innocent actors behind the scenes. (figured i'd use a reagan example there so maybe the "left -wing" accusations might stop, at least for a moment).

you are just another bully behind a keyboard...and now ya got someone who can kick your ass with facts and it's driving you nuts, i've dealt with your ilk for decades, not only online , but more often in person...quick island dog, scan all my posts and look for some lil tidbit you can nitpick as if it matters.

What facts have you provided? It seems to me you are the one paranoid here. Whining and crying about being attacked when nobody has done that to you. Quick, go post some more about Keith, prove to us again you aren't a left wing hack.

What facts have you provided? It seems to me you are the one paranoid here. Whining and crying about being attacked when nobody has done that to you. Quick, go post some more about Keith, prove to us again you aren't a left wing hack

give up island dog....you are getting pathetic. and by the way, you did exactly as i said you would...thanks:) LMFAOROFL!!!!

give up island dog....you are getting pathetic. and by the way, you did exactly as i said you would...thanks:) LMFAOROFL!!!!

No, pathetic is col jihad and avoiding the questions like you have been doing.

No, pathetic is col jihad and avoiding the questions like you have been doing.

yeah, ok....somewhere a village is missing their idiot...better run along home puppy.

again, if you really read my stuff, you should know that the only encounter i have had with this col that you seem to have a hard-on for (is that too offensive for ya? tough) is when he made unfounded accusations and i called him on it. that happened in the last week i believe on here.

if you want to discuss the issue at hand, like did bill do anything? which i gave evidence that he did and that bush's team was putting the issue of terrorism on the back burner in favor of expensive and obsolete missile defense systems to fight russia and china with...i'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. btw, note that my quotes primarily come from conservative writers like frank gaffney and are from BEFORE september 11, 2001. go to townhall.com and you'll find a wealth of right wing journalists discussing the bush agenda when he came into office.

asking everyone to answer your ridiculous and sometimes non-germaine questions to the "inth" degree is pathetic esp. considering you have offered nothing to back up your point. i even proved your fact vs. opinion backpedal and called it out for what it was. i even predicted how you respond, not only here, but on other posts you have tried to attack me on.

you are fooling no one puppy. look at what i wrote, and how ineptly you responded each time. game over, you lose. please try again.

that was something i thought both clinton and reagan were good at, not only as president, but in life. one example...i remember reading reagan's book of letters that came out a few years ago and being impressed with his role in protecting some unfairly targeted actors from the mccarthy commision. his "the only good commie is a dead commie" line got blown out of context and he was painted as assisting them when he was really keeping their claws from getting to some innocent actors behind the scenes. (figured i'd use a reagan example there so maybe the "left -wing" accusations might stop, at least for a moment).

That was how he met his Second Wife, Nancy. But Clinton and Reagan are a good comparison in that respect. They both knew how to play an audience. Neither the Bushes, or Ford, Carter, LBJ, Nixon could. I think Kennedy could, but I was too young to remember.

They both knew how to play an audience.

they did, but the point i was making was more about their ability to work with both sides and get the things done that can get done,,,then use those things as possible springboards or opportunities to try to get things done that are not nec. agreed to in advance. even if everything doesn't get done, i believe both sides can benefit from understanding the other side better and that's when the "enemy" mentalities start to subside.

unfortunately, the lil pup never got that memo...or just wrote it off as some left wing conspiracy.

they did, but the point i was making was more about their ability to work with both sides and get the things done

The 2 kind of go hand in hand. I remember the Gingrich snit. Clinton played him like a harp from hell! And Reagan? Tip O'neill never knew what hit him!

'So you simply believe left-wing bias that tells you that Fox news has a right-wing bias. Fox news does have a right-wing bias but no more than CNN has a left-wing bias. Talk about trying to deflect the issue.' draginol

i have not stated anywhere that other mainstream news organizations are without bias themselves, draginol. indeed, i indicate as much with my 'fox effect' reply to deference. as for deflecting the issue.. perhaps it is time that you yourself begin to walk it like you talk it. i have addressed the core issue at the heart of the wallis/path to 9/11 and indeed this thread - the degree of clinton's inaction over bin laden.

you however, as with emily, have chosen a straw argument by focusing on whether the neocons were obsessed with his going after bin laden. the fact that some republicans supported clintons efforts does not mean therefore that some also didn't. this is hardly a lie on clinton's part. subjective experience perhaps. ultimately it remains a debatable point. not one based in fact. moreover, in the context of the greater argument, it is of little consequence.

you talk a great deal about lying and have accused the left of 'lazy intellectualism' and yet so far you - and others - have failed to give any substantial weight to those claims in regard to the the core argument that has been put forward here. exactly which part of clinton's defense is a lie draginol?

you talk a great deal about lying and have accused the left of 'lazy intellectualism' and yet so far you - and others - have failed to give any substantial weight to those claims in regard to the the core argument that has been put forward here. exactly which part of clinton's defense is a lie draginol?

well, ya see the nonsense i had to deal with from puppy when i tried to get some actual evidence. they just claim "clinton is lying" and move back to personal attack mode.

you are just another bully behind a keyboard...and now ya got someone who can kick your ass with facts and it's driving you nuts, i've dealt with your ilk for decades, not only online , but more often in person...quick island dog, scan all my posts and look for some lil tidbit you can nitpick as if it matters.

Very doubtful.

well, ya see the nonsense i had to deal with from puppy when i tried to get some actual evidence. they just claim "clinton is lying" and move back to personal attack mode.

Something you never do right? Another hypocrit on the boards.

perhaps then, seanconners, since the issue of media bias is such a salient feature in many of the responses in this thread, it might be more productive for clinton's critics to produce evidence that foxnews has ever directly asked any of the bush administration as to why they failed to do anything about the bombing of the uss cole. or, why they demoted richard clarke reknown for his experience in anti-terrorism. or indeed, why they themselves failed to engage in an anti-terrorist strategy during the 8 months prior to 9/11.

you however, as with emily, have chosen a straw argument by focusing on whether the neocons were obsessed with his going after bin laden. the fact that some republicans supported clintons efforts does not mean therefore that some also didn't. this is hardly a lie on clinton's part. subjective experience perhaps. ultimately it remains a debatable point. not one based in fact. moreover, in the context of the greater argument, it is of little consequence.

Can you name ONE Republican who claimed Clinton was "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.

Clinton made a bunch of claims that were untrue. This was the one that really stuck out to me.