posted on Jul, 30 2003 @ 12:54 PM
UP, you sound like a political-non-Euclidean...
I hear a lot of words being thrown around. I think, for the sake of argument, that there needs to be a clearer definition of the political spectrum.
Lets start here:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism,
especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Under this "definition" I cannot think of a true "liberal" in the democratic party since George McGovern. Maybe Dukakis...maybe.
Clinton is by no-means a liberal. Here are some policies that Clinton /Gore enacted in their 8 years. Do they fit the classic definition of a
1.Resisted all efforts to reduce carbon in our air
2. the first Administration in 25 years NOT to demand higher fuel efficiency standards
3. Did nothing to reduce Arsenic levels in drinking water
4. Did nothing about Carpal-Tunnel syndrome as it relates to OSHA regulations (and these ladies went to the polls twice to vote for him)
5. Enacted and supported NAFTA -Doubling the pollution levels on the Mexican borders, not to mention the economic havoc created for American blue
6. 1996 Welfare Reform bill included the same "Faith based initiatives" that now have the left hollering about separation of church/state.
7. 1999 signed the order to deny funds to any foreign group that discussed abortion during consultation
8. the top 25 contributors to Dole and Clinton during the 1996 election were the SAME companies
9. Refused to declare moratorium on death penalty - Twice!
10. Refused legislation for tax credits for teen parents and welfare recipients
11.Refused to sign "land mine ban treaty" Nov 16th 1999
He also signed executive orders strengthening FEMA, dubious anti-terror legislation after Oklahoma City bombing and weakened existing gun control.
He tried to flurry a few bills in the last week of his presidency when it didn't matter, but I think this was to brighten his image for posterity.
It also gave the democrats anti-bush jr fuel when he overturned the "arsenic legislation" All he did was set the levels back what it had been in
the Clinton years!
This man was no liberal. Liberal's are people like Ralph Nadar, George McGovern, Noam Chomsky (who describes himself as an Anarchist) and Adele
Stevenson. Ralph Nadar alone has been fighting big business for 50 years, from mandatory seatbelts (yes, conservatives balked thinking they would
stifle profits) to enviromental pollution.
Here's a partial record of Democratic "liberals" voting records and the percentage of time they voted with the GOP:
Ralph M Hall, TX - 80%
Ken Lucas, KY - 75%
Christopher John, LA - 70%
Jim Traficant, OH - 70%
Marion Berry - AR - 65%
Bud Cramer, AL - 65%
Ronnie Shows, MS - 65%
Gene Taylor, MS 55%
Sanford D. Bishop, Allen Boyd, Gary Condit, David Phelps, Leonard Boswell, Jerry Costello, Tim Holden, Paul Kanjororski, James Maloney, Micheal
McNultly, Bob Clement, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Collin Peterson, Max Sandlin, Shelley Berkeley have all voted with GOP over 50% of the time.
In the senate:
Zell Miller, GA 100% PATHETIC
John Breux, Daniel Inouye, Max CLeland, and Blanch Lincoln all have records over 50%
So the claims that a liberal Whitehouse, Senate or house has made any substantial difference in American Politics in the last twenty years is
ridiculous. There has been only one woman on the Presidential ticket, never a minority. The Roe vs. Wade judgment hangs by a thread, civil rights
have had the clock turned back on them. Clinton oversaw the largest rise in income discrepancy OF ALL TIME between rich and poor, he also presided
over the largest layoff of American blue collared workers to overseas workers in history. He made a few rumblings about gay rights and healthcare but
nothing substantial came out of it.
What we have now in the democratic party are republican wanna-be's that clamor for the same money from the top 10% of this country that republicans
do. Look at their financial supporters??!!! They're the same companies. Look at the Washington lobbyists...they wine and dine the same
If you can unlock the "media-driven" message of what a liberal is, really let go of that, you would find that no matter where you sit in the
political spectrum you can identify with many of the virtues of liberalism.
Think... Think about it. Individual rights no matter what color you are, right to speak your mind whether I agree with you or not (ACLU), social
responsibility (that we should try to eliminate the sufferings of others), freedom of choice (that you alone can best decide what best for you),
affordable education for those who want it, healthy air and water. I can't imagine a conservative, libertarian or anarchist that could object to
these basic ideas. How they're put into practice is where there's a need for real debate.
The media's use of "liberal" just like their use of "right winger" is done solely to separate us, keep us fighting amongst ourselves while the
richest 10% make off with all the money.
For the record, I don't subscribe myself to any political doctrine but I agree with values made in the paragraph above.
We need to start looking at the real enemy among us...
[You are all absolutely free]