Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

This may show what perv I am, but I actually find Hillary attractive. Sure, I wish she had a different haircut (she looked better with it long, and she might look very cool in a buzz cut), and I can't stand her clothes (but the men's clothes equally suck)... but she's still attractive to me.It's pretty much everything else about her that'll keep me from voting for her.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think Hillary is attractive, too. However, I'm almost convinced she won't get elected. This country is still too sexist to even consider a madam president. Even the regular joe who claims to support women rights is a sexist. I'm not convinced the majority of people will not see her sex as something against her.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Not to be sarcastic, but you did just admit that you are racist and so can't support a black guy for prez, right?And I really mean that wasn't sarcastic. If you feel that way, do you have a problem with people who wouldn't vote for a woman because she's a woman?I suppose I'm looking forward to the day that all the bigots in this country of every single stripe (and that means pretty much everyone) feels strong enough to vote for a person based on the policy issues, DESPITE the candidate being someone they can't stand being around personally.I'd vote for a woman for prez any day. I think I might have even liked Hillary more than Bill (given how he turned out). I probably would have voted for her in 2000 if she had run. But since then she has changed way too much (or perhaps her true colors are showing). On top of all of that, I sincerely want to break the aristocratic control of the white house. If we have over 20 years of this nation lead by only two families... that's just not cool by me. Time for some new blood.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

quote:

---

If this election is anything like most elections, a Democrat will be in office. It seems to go in alternating cycles pretty consistently-- certainly not the rule, but its interesting to think why it is.

---

George Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), George Bush Sr (R), Ronald Reagan (R), Jimmy Carter (D), Gerald Ford (R), Richard Nixon (R), Lyndon Johnson (D), John Kennedy (D), Dwight Eisenhower (R), Harry Truman (D), etc...except that the last real Democrat in that list was Carter, and the last true liberal was Kennedy.All of them since Kennedy have been moderate to conservative Republicans, reagardless of their official party affiliation.The only true liberals in the race right now are Kucinich and Gravel, but even they are moderates.The conservative middle of the country is fearful, and that's why it has embraced Right-Wing Authoritarianism.The northeast, the west coast, and the big metropolitan areas (you know, the places that are actually likely to be hit by a terrorist attack, not Buttfuck Corners, Idaho) are still a lot more liberal than the rest of the country, and even more liberal than most of the Democratic candidates.

Hi, nator.One disagreement. Johnson was the last true liberal on your list. Not only was he a strong supporter for Civil Rights, even knowing that it would cost the Democrats in future elections (so at least one good thing did come out of Texas!), but until the Vietnam War derailed his Administration his other goal was to bring the New Deal to its logical conclusion -- not exactly European Social Democracy, but very liberal.But your main point seems valid.I will add, though, that Carter, although not a liberal, was the last President to care for people as more than an abstraction.

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

Well, anyone can defer to the True Scotsman argument. Jar might also add that the last real Republican was Gerald Ford.And Kennedy doesn't exactly strike me as a true liberal. But again, how does one quantify such a thing? Bill Clinton was a Republican then? Sheesh... If those two are moderate, I'd hate to see your idea of a liberal Liberal. Okay... *shrugs* That's a bit of a misnomer. Blue/Red states is somewhat elusive because its only gleaned by the total aggregate of voters. For instance, while California is a Blue State, by way of more voters voting as Democrats, it still is very close. There are a ton of conservative voters in the SoCal area, which is the fifth largest economy in the world. There just so happens to be more liberal voters.Liberal hubs like Portland, San Fransisco, and Seattle on the West Coast, and Boston and New York on the East Coast account for very large swaths of the populace. That much is true, but even despite the Blue/Red state thing, its still pretty even no matter where you go in the US.For instance, Arizona is a big Red state. But Flagstaff, AZ has a ton of libby's living there that counteract the redness of the state. This is why Kerry made a special stop on Flagstaff. I told him he had great hair and we were nearly lynched. Phoenix is generally known for its Redness, but I was accosted at a 2004 Bush rally there.So I think it goes both ways really.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

One disagreement. Johnson was the last true liberal on your list. Not only was he a strong supporter for Civil Rights, even knowing that it would cost the Democrats in future elections (so at least one good thing did come out of Texas!), but until the Vietnam War derailed his Administration his other goal was to bring the New Deal to its logical conclusion -- not exactly European Social Democracy, but very liberal.

​

But your main point seems valid.

​

I will add, though, that Carter, although not a liberal, was the last President to care for people as more than an abstraction.

---

Yes, you're right on both counts.

quote:

---

Bill Clinton was a Republican then?

---

Pretty much, yes.The majority of his fiscal policies were pro-business, like NAFTA. He balanced the budget and cut taxes at the same time. He reduced the size of the federal government. He expanded the death penalty. He instituted the Communications Decency Act and deregulated TV and radio ownership and signed and promoted the Welfare Reform Act. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act.Sounds pretty much like a Republican to me. On the world scale, they are quite moderate liberals.Socialists are farther left, for example, as is the Green party.I am more liberal than either one, according to The Political Compass.I am similar to Ghandi and the Dalai Lama on the chart.My score:Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.26But there can be no doubt that the Democrats of today are the Goldwaters and Nixons of years past. Both, if they were alive today, would be considered far too liberal to be welcomed into the Republican party.

quote:

---

For instance, Arizona is a big Red state. But Flagstaff, AZ has a ton of libby's living there that counteract the redness of the state.

---

But that's my point.People living in diverse metropolitan areas tend to be liberal and reject what the Republican party stands for these days, despite the greater liklihood that they will be a victim of a terrorist attack than someone not living in a city. Similarly, you see little dots of blue in the middle of red states that represent the universities and colleges, indicating that educated people tend towards liberalism.People living in insular, more homogenious communities away from the cities with lower education levels tend to be more conservative.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

what scares me more is that there are plenty of people willing to vote for her *only* because she's a woman... as though that will somehow magically solve our problems. it's not just sexism against women that's a problem, but sexism for women that's a problem. i have a friend who's a rabid hillary supporter, but i'm not convinced she's actually read her platform at all.

What gripes me is that the use of the fact Clinton is a woman or Obama is black. This should not be an issue at all. What should be an issue for them and the rest of the candidates is the issues facing this country ie. the conflicts in Iraq & Afghanistan, global warming, the economy, illegal aliens etc. It can also be shown that woman & blacks can govern as they have as mayors, representatives, senators & governors. They are no worse than White men in such jobs. Also a candidates religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be an issue either.Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

i completely agree.

That's what I've seen too. Obviously that doesn't encapsulate all of her supporters, but I think that a huge chunk of that percentage follow her on the basis that she doesn't have a penis and it would be really nifty if we had a female president. Exactly, because I'm sure most women wouldn't want a pity vote. If women in the suffrage movement had to prove their worth beyond what their sex was, it seems little has changed in the opposite direction. People are still making a big deal about her sex and still hyperfocusing on that. It would seem to me the last thing a female candidate would want is to be known as the female candidate.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

it really would be nifty. but, considering the options, it might be as good a reason as any. i'm not so sure.

While I agree that Clinton was actually quite Republican in activity, I'd disagree with a couple points... While the above are against the stereotype of a liberal, I don't see how that has anything to do with liberal policies.Balancing budgets, cutting taxes, and reducing the size of gov't is fine and should be the ideal for both parties. Of course no Republican has ever done this so how it got to be a liberal stereotype I don't know. I think the difference between the parties would be at what expense. Clinton's gutting the welfare system in order to do this, was a republican maneuver. However he was good for supporting students, which republicans never are.The death penalty can be supported by liberals, the question again comes down to context... usage. Censorship and other moralizing had been a hallmark of the progressive movement since its inception. And ideologically, censorship itself is against core conservative principles. So I would easily categorize the above as much a Dem position, if not more, than a Rep one.Within both parties there are sections who dispute censorship. The difference would be that dem anti-censorship people are more uhmmmm... flamboyant in their natures and so garner more attention. The Dem party appears to wrap themselves in the flag of these people, while seeking to wipe out free communication.Edited by Silent H, : lil fixEdited by Silent H, : more, than

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

He reduced the size of the military which Reagan spent building it up. The Navy downsized considerably, going down to something like 300 ships. Did he? How did he do that if the death penalty is a states prerogative? Do you think that was a bad move? Well, the welfare system needed some improvements since indiscriminate giving doesn't help anyone in the long term. He also instituted the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy for the military. Maybe on certain issues. But he seemed pretty consistently Democrat during the bulk of his tenure. Then again, I suppose the term "liberal" is subjective to the eye of the beholder.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake