Will voting for Liberals lower poverty, unemployment and the deficit?

[meltzerboy]

PETA?

I love animals but have no desire to be a member of a purported terrorist organization such as PETA. Maybe they also do some good things for animals but I cannot abide their tactics.

 

[LisaA]

PETA?

Also out here we have ALF (Animal Liberation Front I think?) and the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) that have used violence and vandalism in their quest to promote their agenda. I suspect none of them are card carrying members of the John Birch Society

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy, I think living in NYC you don’t see the “Green Movement” as up close and personal as do we here on the Left Coast. We have a relatively active extremist environmental movement that for example would go into the woods and put spikes in trees (damaging to logging equipment) or set fires at car lots or at construction sites. We had "Butterfly ??? " living in a tree for a year to protect the forest when any moron can fly over the state and see thousands and thousands of acres of forests.

Further the economy has been destroyed by what I consider an extremist drive to protect various animals or plants. Many are aware of the human misery resulting from saving a small fish (Delta Smelt). In my state logging has been decimated to save various insects, amphibians or more well known the Spotted Owl…the irony being that the Barred Owl was killing the Spotted Owls so the environmentlists decided to kill the Barred Owls to save the Spotted. As the old commercial went, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

I have heard many of these folks interviewed and to a ONE they don’t care nearly as much about humans as about these animals. Now I am an animal NUT. But I do not understand a philosophy that would save birds and salamanders but will not speak against abortion. I also do not understand a philosophy that would protect a fish and allow families to be unable to put food on the table.

And before anyone jumps in to claim that if I don’t give a rat’s patooty about the Delta Smelt that I want a scorched earth policy, that is not the case. I just think that our charge to be good stewards of the earth and its resources does not mean putting fish and human beings on equal planes. Trust me, many in the super Green Environmentalist movement do just that.

Lisa

I agree with you, Lisa. Only you might prefer to say you live on the West Coast rather than the LEFT Coast!

 

[meltzerboy]

Peter Singer is a prime example. I did not mean to lump all environmentalists in one category. There is, of course, a difference between someone who says “our use of fossil fuels is not sustainable” and “human society is destroying the ecosystem.” I’ve seen leftists, far left types, say things like the latter. The ‘left,’ of course, encompasses many different groups and ideologies. I should have been more clear.

Thank you, and thanks LisaA.

Thank you for the clarification, StudentMI. I’m not in favor of the fringe elements of either the Left or the Right.

 

[meltzerboy]

I understand the reference, even though it may be an impression rather than the fullness of any position. The impression given, by members of some extremist groups, is that human beings exist for the cosmos/planet, not vice-versa. That’s for starters, Second, that animals are at least equal in importance to humankind or any individual human, if not (sometimes, it’s inferred) more so. IOW, OK to mess with man’s habitat, livelihood, & survival, not with animal habitats. Human beings can be sacrificed for the lower animals, not the other way around. Third (what has been mentioned), restriction on population growth to the point of attempts at legislative control of that, or executive policy about that, and the rationale for that being – again – survival of one or more animal species. Fourth, the plant world is as important as (sometimes more important than) the human world. I’m not talking here about vigilance over worldwide food resources. The Lord forbid that there be one less tree; however, it’s OK to have one less child, adult, or family.

This is all deducible from the policies they advocate, meltzerboy.

IOW, there are environmentalists, and then there are radicals. One, I believe, tries to be grounded in reality and balance; the other is responsible for rant after rant about the evils of population growth, the imbalance between man and the rest of nature, and how the solution to that is fewer human beings, for starters.

Forgetting about the impracticality of this all, I object to the anti-theology of it. It definitely contradicts a Catholic and Jewish understanding of scripture and the order of nature.

Thanks, Elizabeth. I realize this kind of leftist radicalism exists, a counterpoint to the rightist kind. Fortunately, it does not represent the whole spectrum of liberal thinking.

 

[Darryl1958]

I love animals but have no desire to be a member of a purported terrorist organization such as PETA. Maybe they also do some good things for animals but I cannot abide their tactics.

Holocaust on a Plate is a little over the top, isn’t it?

 

[Darryl1958]

eco-imperialism.com/wrongful-ban-on-ddt-costs-lives/

It saves some birds though.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with you, Lisa. Only you might prefer to say you live on the West Coast rather than the LEFT Coast!

Speaking philosophically, what we call ‘left’ and ‘right’ seems to correlate strongly with densely-populated areas versus sparsely-populated areas. If this is indeed the case, the Law of Distribution determines this demographic for us. And it’s what brought on cities in the first place since the earliest civilization. It’s called society. So I agree with you that the label of LEFT coast should not be used. There are enough rural areas in California, my brother lives in one, which makes that label rather defamatory.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unemployment ticked up last month. Underemployment and non-participation are at Depression levels.

Deficits continue to climb while this administration calls for yet more spending.

Small business hiring is flat.

SSI benefits are $710/month.

The liberals had total power for nearly two years, and have had 2/3 of the government since then. I think the answer to the OP question speaks for itself.

 

[LisaA]

Speaking philosophically, what we call ‘left’ and ‘right’ seems to correlate strongly with densely-populated areas versus sparsely-populated areas. If this is indeed the case, the Law of Distribution determines this demographic for us. And it’s what brought on cities in the first place since the earliest civilization. It’s called society. So I agree with you that the label of LEFT coast should not be used. There are enough rural areas in California, my brother lives in one, which makes that label rather defamatory.

Really? That would come as a suprise to those living in say Dallas Texas. So it’s that flyover country that is conservative? All those hillbillies and swamp people living out in the sticks voting for Conservatives whereas the elites and educated crammed together say in the south side of Chicago are liberals? To some extent you are correct with respect to the large urban areas in states that have a significant but scattered conservative population…upstate New York is worlds away from Manhatten just as Pendleton Oregon is far different than Portland.

As to the term “Left Coast” truly you find this double entendre “defamatory?” Must be a slow news day ProVobis. Remember the term Left COAST. I live in a state that has a far larger geographically conservative area but the left side of the state is very LEFT as is SF, LA, Seattle, etc.

Now about that question I keep asking you…do you really think we pro-life supporters are more interested in political labels than in saving babies and would not welcome a pro abortion politician who changed his/her mind and heart because they were Democrat?

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Unemployment ticked up last month. Underemployment and non-participation are at Depression levels.

Deficits continue to climb while this administration calls for yet more spending.

Small business hiring is flat.

SSI benefits are $710/month.

The liberals had total power for nearly two years, and have had 2/3 of the government since then. I think the answer to the OP question speaks for itself.

Thanks Ridge, appreciate your bringing the thread back.

To echo your sentiment and answer the question:

NO

It will be interesting to hear how Obama spins the economic news in the SOTU address. Saw this from Byron York:

**White House spinners are working furiously in the final 72 hours before President Obama’s State of the Union speech. Their job: convince the recession-scarred American public that economic recovery is Obama’s top priority — after everything he has said and done to suggest otherwise.

The unemployment rate is 7.9 percent — one tenth of a point higher than it was when Obama took office in January 2009. But the true toll of joblessness is far higher. The Labor Department’s so-called U-6 rate, which includes people who want a job but have become so discouraged they have quit looking, is 14.4 percent. And a new study, by Rutgers University scholars, shows that 23 percent of those surveyed have lost a job sometime in the last four years, while another 11 percent have seen someone in their household lose a job. That is one-third of the American people who have experienced unemployment during Obama’s time in office, along with many more who have experienced other hardships of the economic downturn.**

I remember the Carter years well and quite honestly I do not remember the resignation if not despair regarding the economy then although from some economic markers, it was a worse time with inflation and high interest rates adding to the misery of high unemployment. I have NEVER seen so many people either out of work, unable to find anything remotely resembling the jobs they had pre2008, or the really dreadful prospects of college graduates as they venture into the job market.

The economic suicide committed by voters on November 6th still astonishes me.

Lisa

 

[estesbob]

**White House spinners are working furiously in the final 72 hours before President Obama’s State of the Union speech. Their job: convince the recession-scarred American public that economic recovery is Obama’s top priority — after everything he has said and done to suggest otherwise.

Lisa**

I dont know what all the fuss is about his speech. Seems to me it would be pretty easy to write"

My Fellow Americans; The State of the Union is Dismal , has been dismal since I took over and will be dismal for at least another 4 years. In closing id like to say its all Bushs fault."

 

[estesbob]

Really? That would come as a suprise to those living in say Dallas Texas. So it’s that flyover country that is conservative? All those hillbillies and swamp people living out in the sticks voting for Conservatives whereas the elites and educated crammed together say in the south side of Chicago are liberals? To some extent you are correct with respect to the large urban areas in states that have a significant but scattered conservative population…upstate New York is worlds away from Manhatten just as Pendleton Oregon is far different than Portland.

As to the term “Left Coast” truly you find this double entendre “defamatory?” Must be a slow news day ProVobis. Remember the term Left COAST. I live in a state that has a far larger geographically conservative area but the left side of the state is very LEFT as is SF, LA, Seattle, etc.

Now about that question I keep asking you…do you really think we pro-life supporters are more interested in political labels than in saving babies and would not welcome a pro abortion politician who changed his/her mind and heart because they were Democrat?

Lisa

I believe Obama Catholics (and i am not referring to Pro Vobis) have to embrace these stereotypes of Republicans and Pro-lifers-to not do so would cause them to confront the horrible evil they have promoted. For those who claim to be pro-life but did not vote for either of the candidates such stereotypes provides rationalization for sitting out the most crucial moral issue facing the country sincel slavery

 

[Jeanne_S]

I believe Obama Catholics (and i am not referring to Pro Vobis) have to embrace these stereotypes of Republicans and Pro-lifers-to not do so would cause them to confront the horrible evil they have promoted. For those who claim to be pro-life but did not vote for either of the candidates such stereotypes provides rationalization for sitting out the most crucial moral issue facing the country sincel slavery

Yes and to the detriment of our country.This certainly wasn’t the time to indulge in a protest vote!

 

[LisaA]

I dont know what all the fuss is about his speech. Seems to me it would be pretty easy to write"

My Fellow Americans; The State of the Union is Dismal , has been dismal since I took over and will be dismal for at least another 4 years. In closing id like to say its all Bushs fault."

Brilliant! And right to the point

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe Obama Catholics (and i am not referring to Pro Vobis) have to embrace these stereotypes of Republicans and Pro-lifers-to not do so would cause them to confront the horrible evil they have promoted. For those who claim to be pro-life but did not vote for either of the candidates such stereotypes provides rationalization for sitting out the most crucial moral issue facing the country sincel slavery

I totally agree. When you marginalize, you are then able to stigmatize, which in turn justifies your support for the opposite position or opposing person.

In theory, I do support (as does the Church!) a practicing Catholic voting for a third candidate not from a major party. To me, the culpability part has to do with all of the Court appointments (not just the important Supreme Court, but the very many courts in the federal system in which stunning decisions have occurred virtually unnoticed during various presidencies).

A “protest” vote is a vote for impotence in the area of judicial appointments. Given that the judicial branch has increasingly become, in the last 30 years, a political territory and tool, voter apathy – including that of Catholics – has concrete and dangerous effect.

Now, if we had a coalition government, a minority party vote would be a rational one. But we do not have such a government, which is precisely why it is not rational but rationalization.

Significance of circuit courts
Circuit courts are very influential because they set legal precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court only accepts 1% of the cases that are submitted to it. So in the vast majority of cases, it is the circuit courts that ultimately set legal precedent when they decide appeals.

diffen.com/difference/Circuit_Court_vs_District_Court

Who appoints federal judges?
Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution.

iand.uscourts.gov/e-web/home.nsf/0/13287fdb81974093862573d00057205a?OpenDocument

Edited to add this, speaking of one controversial circuit court, responsible for many an extremist opinion:

The court’s biggest push to the left came in the 1970s, when President Carter was able to appoint 15 judges, thanks in part to Congressional expansion of the judicial rolls. “Carter appointed some of the most liberal judges ever, to any court,” said Alex Kozinski, now the chief judge of the circuit and an appointee of Ronald Reagan.

That Democratic bulge in the court means that even today, when most of the circuits’ majorities are made up of Republican appointees, 58 percent of the Ninth’s active judges came from Democratic administrations.

nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[estesbob]

I
In theory, I do support (as does the Church!) a practicing Catholic voting for a third candidate not from a major party. l]

I want to make it clear that although I personally believe not voting or voting for a non-viable candidate makes one complicit in the election of Obama that is not what the Church teaches-it is my personal opinion

 

[ProVobis]

Yes and to the detriment of our country.This certainly wasn’t the time to indulge in a protest vote!

But it can’t all be decided at the ballot box. Let’s face it, over 2 million will be aborted before the next election and 4-5 million will be aborted before the 2016 election. All this time could be spent on better things than arguing about which major party promotes the greater evil, I would think.

 

[LisaA]

But it can’t all be decided at the ballot box. Let’s face it, over 2 million will be aborted before the next election and 4-5 million will be aborted before the 2016 election. All this time could be spent on better things than arguing about which major party promotes the greater evil, I would think.

I don’t think arguing about “which party promotes the greater evil” is what most people focus on in these discussions. Other than the mental gymnastics of the Obama supporters who try to justify voting for Obama because “Romney is a mass murderer” or “Republicans haven’t overturned Roe” much of this discussion has been about what political positions, statements and legislation or which candidates cannot be supported by faithful Catholics.

I think you are obfuscating ProVobis. It’s like the people who claim “you Right Wingers just want to prevent abortion but you don’t do anything about the babies when they are born.” That’s not true nor is the contention that those who are trying to point out how Obama’s pro abortion record and statements cannot be reconciled with faithful Catholicism are wasting their time.

I’ve learned a LOT from CAF and I am glad for those thoughtful posters who know and speak the Truth.

Lisa

 

[Eugenius]

I think we have hit a new normal. Many of the jobs are never coming back, regardless who is president.