Liberals on Joeuser find comfort in silence

Chuck, I don't think what your seeing is abnormal. In fact, I believe that of the liberals on JU, only a small number are Obama ideologues. I'm sure many don't want to hear "I told you so", and that's not what conservatives should be saying. We have this Congress and administration for the next one and three years respectively, so their is plenty of time for liberals to push an agenda. If anything we owe conservative and moderate Democrats a great deal for standing up to their party bosses and not allowing these monstrous spending bills to pass. Although the liberal press blames the Republicans, they are helpless to prevent anything that most Democrats want to push through.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take my Obama/leftist shot from time to time, it goes with the territory. But I'm trying to keep it on his policies and not the man (his experience, appointments and associations make this difficult to do). I didn't like the personal attacks with Bush, and don't see much point in returning the favor. You'll see liberals return when good things start happening. I want unemployment to decrease and the economy to improve. I'm not so spitefully that I want bad things to happen just to discredit this president (many on the left did that with Bush). We can debate the cause and effects of a recovery on its own merits.

Like conservatives, liberals believe they have the best interest of the country at heart too. We just have two entirely different ways of getting there. My main concern is the liberal's watchdog like behavior during the Bush administration (and I believe it helped keep things honest) is now somehow muted under the dazzle of this administration. These forces are still trying to gain greater control over the people, just less people are watching now. The only thing I could say is stay vigilant no matter who is in office, now is no time for a break, corruption should be everyones concern and so should the preservation of the Constitution. It has worked for us all this many years, don't let anyone change that, friend or foe.

That much I agree. I know they believe they want whats best. I also agree we don't need to lower ourselves to their standards. My goal here is to get them talking. Things seem a bit slow around here now that Obama is not doing as great as they expected him to do and I just want to draw them to comment somehow.

Basically I'm bored.

Interesting statement.  And I agree.  A key difference however is that we dont have to "want".  History and experience has taught us that the bad things are self inflicted and as you noted, there is not a thing conservatives can do about it.  So while I dont WANT things to happen, I know they will.  But I knew that over a year ago. 

As with any lesson in life, the one learned through experience is the one well remembered.  I do remember Carter (most liberals ignore that era, conveniently forget it, or were not around).  And with age comes wisdom.  I saw later in life that Reagan was not electable in 76, but as we know won in a landslide in 80 (even with a 3rd party trying to draw off his voters).

So it will be in 10 and 12.  Conservatives are already making a statement - from the 23rd in NY to the Fla Senate race to Virginia.  it takes time, and perhaps more years of liberals to turn the tide.  It will turn.  But like goldfish, the electorate has a short memory so it will not last.  But just because they will once again gain control does not mean we have to accede to their way of doing things like bush did.

They hate Bush, not because he was a Reagan, but because he was not a liberal, and yet did a lot they agreed with.  outside of lemings, Liberals are probably the only species left that purposefully cut off their nose to spite their face.

I hear ya. I believe the only way to get some dialog going is to concentrate on a specific issue. If one is to believe the polls, 2/3rds of all Americans don't want the health care bill that is being push threw congress, so I'm not surprised the talk here is spares now. Climate change seems to be still getting some mileage, not sure for how long. I think many are just burnt out, too much craziness in govt. this year.

Sage advice Doc... on par of what I expect from you.

We're all out fighting the evils of conservatism and holding off the No-icans. Oh, I mean republicans. You know, the trollish brutes that we are.

Actually, to be honest, I've found more compelling things to do than be harassed by those who have shown that they generally think that liberals are misguided morons, who don't think, don't care, and are the be all and end all of evil under the sun. \s

I've had more pressing priorities, like college, work, the holidays, family and a likely forthcoming change in my life. JU really has lost all sense of civility and appeal to be honest, but I check back in every once in a while because of a few people I like.

What rock on which planet have you been hiding Nitro? You do realize that the Democratic party (The helm of all things "liberal" and evil as y'all claim.) is pretty much split, and there are rumors that there is a movement to start a different party.

The same can be said of conservatives under O's presidency, Nitro. Frankly, no exceptions, both parties become extremely vigilant (i.e. nit picky) when the other party has the presidency, both parties become more zealous, both parties bend over backwards to criticize the president (or the other parties) even when they do something right. It's like batman on steroids; it's disgusting and ridiculous.

Neither party has the answer, and neither has the market on representing our nation's founding principles. Hell, Thomas Pain (English spelling), a man many conservatives like to quote, was a socialist in some aspects. There was a combination of both conservatism and liberalism (maybe not exactly like the modern incarnations, but none-the-less...).

Rhetorically: Where is the geniality in politics? Where's the ability to go out and have dinner with each other and know that, despite the differences of opinions and beliefs, you knew the other man's integrity was solid - you had a bond with them. (i.e. the post-world war two era congress)

(btw, why are you guys always so condescending towards liberals?)

~AJ

See Chuck just rub your magic liberal lamp and one will appear!

Oddly enough while I expected AJ to be one of the first responders I didn't think he would take it this hard. After all, he always denies being a Liberal. Don't you AJ?

"no exceptions, both parties become extremely vigilant (i.e. nit picky) when the other party has the presidency, both parties become more zealous, both parties bend over backwards to criticize the president (or the other parties) evenwhen they do something right. It's like batman on steroids; it's disgusting and ridiculous."

I think you answered your own question.

Hey, I see Lucas is still around.  Names changed, but still the empty headed adolescent idiot from many names and years.  Why Alderic, lewis?  Are you channeling Ted kennedy now?

The short answer is they do not use their brains.  They spout talking points - like you do, bleat like sheep whatever the leaders tell them is the mot-du-jour - like you do, and fail to think rationally.  They feel a lot.  They feel your pain and want all the hurt to go away, so they take the simplistic approach to life with simplistic solutions that make them feel better, but do no good (and indeed usually do a lot of harm).  They never think things through.  They are kind of like animals in that regard.  Never thinking about reprecussions of their actions, just living in the present.

***Corrected***

Kinda Ironic considering the concept of birth consist of a painful process in order for a child to be born and not to mention that the act of conceiving the child can be painful the first time or depending on the people doing it.

The way i see it everything in life is painful. In order to know fire was dangerous someone had to get burned first. People die all the time, part of nature and it's painful for the person dying and those who loved them. Children can be pains in the a$$ (LOL). Pain is part of living yet Liberals want to do everytyhing they can to take the pain away from everything. Hell, even at birth Drs spank the child to make it cry so they can breath.

I've been doing some reading and writing and I've come to accept that I am in fact liberal when it comes to the foundations of my beliefs; that said, I have no qualms over reaching across the spectrum and working with others (and I mean real give/take problem solving compromise, not how either party defines it...). Being liberal though, doesn't mean that I will support the Democratic Party. I feel they've really become corrupt and perverse.

(Oddly enough, I want the health care bill, in its current form, to fail.)

~AJ

1. Actually it isn't lewis, but thanks for playing.

2. Go figure, an insult...why am I not surprised. Is ironic though, heh.

~A

Dont you mean meh Lucas?  Look, dont con me.  I have been around and seen enough of your manifestations to know you when I read you.  I did not have to read much to see the similarity, so I started digging.  Seems strange that your latest manifestation started right when the last one left JU (according to JU), that you write with the same air head ideas (I did not insult you, I merely described you), and new account was created from the same IP address.

now you may be lucas Jr, or Mrs. Lucas, or the superliberal, or anyone else you pretend to be.  But dont con a con man.  I just noted your presence so I can ignore your comments for the waste of space they are.  You are free to make as many as you want, but I dont have to waste my time on them.  Be well and have fun.

***Corrected***

Well I'm glad you finally decided to accept that your ideals and beliefs were more Liberal than you wanted to accept. Nothing wrong with it, if it's what you believe that is cool. That's what this country is all about.

1) As with Bush, I'm giving Obama a bit of time to see what  he does before I completely make  up my mind. I was actually pro-Bush and pro-Republican until shortly after the Iraq war revealed there were no WMD's and the entire invasion was not necessary and was instead, built on a pack of lies.

2) I'm not "pro-democrat" in fact I haven't been since 1994. Anyone who cares about the working class should have left the democratic party then when they effectively stabbed your middle class in the back with NAFTA (which by the way, neither Bush 2 nor Obama have done anything about and have only encouraged.

3) Liberal does not necessarily mean democrat. For example, Cindy Sheehan ran for office directly against Nancy Pelosi. I would have much preferred it if she had beaten Pelosi. There are only a few "democrats" that I consider to be actual liberals, Kucinich is one of them. On the Republican side, I would have been much  happier if Ron Paul had run for office. But, above all of them I'm more a supporter of Nader than anything else.

4) From what I've seen thus far, Obama is actually little different from Bush. In fact, at the core he's doing all the same things Bush did with a few minor differences like the window-dressing topics of abortion, gun control and so forth.

Economically his policies are just as rotten as Bush's were and he's just as beholden to major corporate interests as Bush was. So he's going to raise taxes on the well to do by a tiny amount, big whoop. He's certainly  not going to "soak the rich" like Roosevelt or Eisenhower did, as with all things Obama does his policies are geared towards -appearing- to care for the average guy while in reality he's just as beholden to the same interests Bush was. Most of his credibility went out the window when he expanded the Afghanistan war.... in my opinion, he should be pulling all of your troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and closing down overseas bases that aren't necessary.

I heard she was going to, but never heard any more.  Guess the MSM wanted to squelch that.

And I would agree you are not a "classic US Liberal", and while you may be giving Obama some breathing room, you are not a happy camper (I know the TARP and deficit are the end of the world!).

You are consistent.  I dont agree with most of your positions, but I do enjoy (and have missed) reading them.

Finally, in a way I do agree with you on Bush and Obama.  There are unfortunately too many similarities.  And all of them anti-conservative and anti-freedom.  But where Bush was "j'accused" about things, Obama did them without thinking twice.

Arty, if one were to listen to the media, WMD's would have been the entire reason for going to war in Iraq, but that is just, if I may us Al Gore's word's, an inconvenient truth. Saddam, was in violation of a number of UN resolutions, more than one of which mandated a military response. Europe which can talk a good talk, has very little will to back up its words. The WMD's was only the cherry on top of the cake (I listed those resolution a long time ago /w link, I don't care to find them again, but they are out there). IMO Saddam should have been removed during the first Gulf War. His actions warranted it, but we didn't want to hurt any Arab sensibilities. How many Iraqis died under Saddam and his sons sadistic regime in those 12 years? Plenty. These is the problems one has when they do half the job. I believe the Iraqi's today, despite some lingering violence, have a much brighter future because of US action.

That may be so, but now the same folks that railed Bush are quiet when Obama does the same things, on a much grander scale. Right and wrong are not interchangeable.

Actually Doc, the point I was making was that my name isn't lewis, it's lucas.  [\s--> But yeah, I'm still the lovable guy you love to erroneously assume is as immature, etc. as I was over four years ago (god forbid people change and mature, right doc? from one JU outcast to another \s] Have a lovely christmas.

Actually Charles, according to the words you have used here, there IS something wrong with it. Whether or not those words are your actual principles, or if they're merely the tactics you claim to use - to me, your words reinforce what I see in our nation.

The lack of respect for boundaries; when people don't exactly practice what they preach. You say it's all well and good, that this country is all about differences and the coexistance of such - but I call bullshit. Look at the people the mindlessly follow parties, and bash anyone who is of the opposite (or different) party, it's ridiculous. Or look at those who push their faith onto the mainstream? There is no live and let live Charles.

I believe in coexistance just as you say you do, but the reality is that there is a very chaotic coexistance. Mindless fools snipe and claw at others merely because they're different. Sound familiar?

I want to see people working together to solve our problems, regardless of orientation. I don't truly believe that there is one best way - liberal or conservative. You see where I'm coming from?

~A

Oh yes they are; as long as there are different religions - right and wrong, fact and truth, are interchangeable and relative.

But Nitro, does that give us the right to interfere in other people's affairs? Would you like it if another country assumed (albeit arrogantly) that they had the right to get involved in our affairs?

Sorry, but I just have issues with that notion.

You mean like Japan Dec 7, 1941? Or like AJ answering responses posed to Arty? Please. We should be minding our own business in Copenhagen. Love how liberals pick and choose there definition of "interference". 

So many folks have conveniently forgotten that Iraq fired missiles and AA at our planes on an almost daily basis while our planes were inforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone.  There were a number of reasons that we went into Iraq, WMD was NOT one of them.  Bush clearly stated on more than one occasion that Hussein was in the process of trying to acquire WMD and that the rest of the world could not wait around for him to get them. 

I am not bored.  I am pissed.  It is not boring to watch a band of political thugs do so much damage to this country that by the time a more conservative regime takes over, it may be too late to recover from the nasty mess that has been created.

If people don't pull their heads out of their fourth point of contact, this country will be is such sorry shape it will not be able to "interfere" in other countries' affairs...then we will see how restrained those other countries will be in meddling in OUR affairs.

Ahh yes, the time honoured debate about the Iraq war. You state that WMD's weren't the entire reason and you are absolutely correct.

-however-

The war was fraudulently sold to the American people as one of necessity, as Bush, Wolfowitz, Feith and co. screamed to high hell that they had "slam dunk" proof that Saddam was re-arming and was a direct threat to the west. He wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people. The UN arms inspectors, in concert with many intelligence and military analysts from your own nation unequivocally stated that Iraq didn't have the means to launch attacks outside their own borders. This was buried, ignored, or, if high-profile lead to criminal activities like the whole Plame affair.

But the invasion, and the war, was not necessary. Was Saddam a bad guy? Absolutely he was. But the U.S has a long history of getting in bed with bad guys the world over, so long as they're playing to your tune. Suharto killed over a million of his own people (most of them non-combatants but deemed politically undesirable) in a coup. And he did it with logistical and military support from the U.S.

Turkey (then the Ottoman empire) killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians in a genocidal campaign, the American ambassador sent a telegram to Washington recounting how he personally witnessed mass-slaughter that was part of a "campaign of race extermination" Washington didn't want to lose their ally so they let it slide. Even today, Turkey refuses to admit that the genocide even occurred and the U.S won't call a spade a spade, largely because they don't want to lose such a large, geo-politically important ally.

To state that you went into Iraq to spread freedom and get rid of a bad guy -because- he was a bad guy is disingenous at best. You went into Iraq to get rid of a bad guy who wouldn't play to your tune and was an obstacle to U.S geopolitical goals.... but, he posed no threat to you of any kind, therefore, you should not have invaded. Otherwise, why didn't you invade Indonesia when Suharto was knocking people off left and right? Why didn't you sever ties with Turkey and demand they at minimum acknowledge the genocide that occurred? There are many, many cases of the U.S doing business with men just as bad or worse then Saddam, so why all of the sudden take the high road in one isolated case? hhhmm?

Why thanks Dr. Guy! It's been awhile since I've seen you around these parts, but have enjoyed the fact that dialogue with you has always been civil and constructive despite major differences of opinion.

In regards to Obama, I most certainly am not a happy camper. I really do wish that your nation could break the stranglehold that two parties (both of whom I consider rotten and beholden to the same special interests) have on the political discussion. If more independents or, god-forbid a third party started to actually gain some traction maybe folks might feel like they have a choice other than "bad" and "worse" at the ballot box.

Yep, they sure did. Cindy Sheehan came in second with 46,118 votes. Not too bad for an independent taking on an entrenched incumbent like Pelosi!

BFD-

I don't think the U.S should be in the position to militarily interfere with any country, unless of course they are a beligerint who has declared war on you. Armies exist to defend a nation, -NOT- to garrison a planet and act as a rapid reaction force for the oil companies when one of the local strongmen decides to get uppity and go off-script.

But, don't worry. In a few more years your nation simply won't be able to afford it's network of hundreds of bases that exist outside of your borders and coupled with the fact that more than 60% of your energy is being imported from foreign sources, if you don't find a way to get off the oil and the coal you'll be in a world of hurt.

I wonder how much oil the US military is "garrisoning" in Germany, Korea, Italy, and of course Afghanistan.

And why were they saying this?  YOu brought it up, now tell the whole truth.

A lot of us do as well.  Just not enough.  And it is a game of chicken.  The first side that breaks will lose in the short term.