We got issues, you and me .......

[Stinky The Clown]

"You" being the Republics. "Me" being the Democrats.

Use this thread to discuss an issue that we hold near and dear that any old time Repiblic could embrace.

I'll start with one. The issue of a balanced budget/fiscal responsibility. Democrats I know espouse that. In fact, the last Democratic president not only held it near and dear, he implemented it. He also worked successfully toward reducing the deficit. He asked for, but was denied by the Republic Party in Congress, the power to exercise the line item veto.

What other mainstream, non-radical issues and policies do we hold that are still ascribed only to the Republic party?

[BootinUp]

1. A Republic told me this one today

Don't fix it unless its broke! I interpret that as we need to balance out control of the government. Not have one party implement an ideological agenda.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. The meme continues ......

JUST NOW! .... Hairballz ...... deficits ...... Tweety sez ro Howie Fineman: 'That's one thing the Democrats better damn soon get. Most people see deficits as immoral'

Whaaaaaaaaa ..... ?

Tweety, you counting numbers any more? Who got the deficit to where it is today? You dumb fuck.

[BootinUp]

3. Social Security, Health Care, Creating Jobs, Strong National Security

Crime Prevention, Education, The Environment.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "WHY do they hate us?"

i had an opportunity to debate a republican (big time bush supporter) at an anti-bush, anti-war demonstration last week ... he had just concluded a screaming match with a guy from Veterans for Peace (the VFP guy ended the "discussion" by calling him an asshole) ... some women who were there told the guy he was a cowardly hypocrite and that he should enlist if he really believed in the war in Iraq ... all good points - none of them was productive though ...

the biggie issue that seems to embrace so many badly misguided republicans revolves around the issue of national security ... "you liberals don't know what it means to protect this country" ... mr. republican said to me that, with a single question, he could prove that "liberals" are wrong ... "fire away", I said ...

"how can you possibly deny that, if left unchecked, Saddam would have definitely developed a bomb and used it against us???" ... he seemed very proud of himself and was confident that no matter what i threw back at him, he had a pat little answer standing by ready to crush whatever feeble effort I made ...

I said, "well, there you go ... you see, i'd be more than happy, if you like, to accept your premise ... but your entire position is totally wrong ... let me ask you just one question ... answer this honestly, and i bet you haven't given it any thought at all, and you'll see that you, and bush, have chosen a completely wrong approach to terrorism ..."

he seemed a bit more tentative now ... he was more comfortable with "liberals" calling him an asshole ... "so, you're admitting Saddam would have developed a bomb and used it against us?"

"no, i'm saying that let's totally accept that for the sake of argument ... even given that, you're still missing the whole point!"

"whaddya mean", he said ...

"we cannot prevent all possible terrorist attacks ... we cannot prevent other countries from developing more and more deadly technology ... your argument is that we have to try ... fine ... try away ... you'll stop some; you'll fail some ... the creation of killing machines will always grow more and more sophisticated and ultimately will be impossible to safeguard against ... the only way to have real security, assuming that's your goal and my goal, is to understand WHY they hate us and WHY they want to attack us in the first place ... do you actually think Saddam woke up one morning and threw a dart at a map and decided to try to bomb the US? that's crazy ... what is their purpose? what is their motive? why target the US instead of Bolivia or Italy or China?"

"i have no idea ... i think they want to take over the whole world?"

"really? did Iraq attack us or did we attack them? what you're failing to understand, and it's putting us all at risk, is that our country has executed democratically elected foreign leaders, toppled governments, blackmailed government officials, bribed government officials, broadcast propaganda and done whatever we needed to do to accomplish whatever goals "we" have ... and don't believe for a minute that those goals are noble and in the best interest of the American people ... they are NOT ... our government has, for generations, hidden behind such things as national security or spreading democracy or just plain old patriotism to hide their real objectives ... the truth is that most wars and almost all of our country's foreign policy have been created to benefit wealthy, multi-national corporations and their largest, most influential shareholders ... when you understand that our own government's policies are hurting, not helping, our national security, perhaps then you will realize that many of us demonstrating today are every bit as committed to US security as you are ... in fact, we believe that your failure to understand the realities of corporate abuse are making it much, much harder to secure our country ... you see us as cowardly and soft on defense and opposed to any use of force; we see you as naively buying into that exact message ... neither you nor we are intent on self-destruction ... we are all for a strong defense ... but we believe that our nation's foreign policy and foreign conduct are putting us all at risk ..."

all mr. republican could muster at that point was a fairly non-responsive "well, i'm sorry you see things that way" ...

when "they" ask about why "liberals" won't defend this country, rather than getting into the moderate Dem pissing contest about who is tougher on defense, an argument that never goes anywhere, i prefer to accept their argument about the risks we face but ask them WHY? what i'm trying to show them is that I agree with the importance they're placing on protecting the country but i think the policies they are supporting, even if they support them unknowingly, are making the situation worse ...