Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Ive Been There

And here's a hint for someone with a hunch about this new Democratic Party.
Often, when these beneficial things come about that are ultimately going to reflect well on those who support the bill, the Democrats big argument against the bill will be an ardent claim that it could be much better.
That is a false argument. Everything could be much better. A step in the right direction is just right. Voting against a step forward because it is not two steps forward is ridiculous.
And it is a sign of just how bad the Democratic Party has become for those starting to look into things. It is downright unbelievable the way they are treating the poor-- especially those in other countries-- and it extremely condescending, if not actually dishonest, to their supporters who start to understand this.
Personally, I started to recognize this bizarre new trend among the Democratic Party when they became anti-Iraq pretty much from the beginning. For me, at that time-- and still today-- I was 1) excited for the people of Iraq for the prospect of removing Saddam from power; 2) I believed from the beginning that this would be extremely beneficial to all the people in the Middle East in the long run (similar to the fall of the Berlin Wall) and especially to the women in Iraq, 3) the people going over to do the job are good, young Americans just looking to do a job, do it well, and come home.
Anyways, Democrats started saying things like we were fighting Iraqi's and occupying their country. I totally never understood what that talk was about. The fact is-- and it is becoming more and more apparent for those who are looking into it-- the Democrats are staking their terrority as more anti-Republican than pro-poor people and pro-freedom. They would rather hope for trouble in Iraq to prove their anti-Republican points than to just fully and unequivocally celebrate the new opportunities of freedom for Iraqi's. Second, the Democrats would rather keep the status quo for the poor people than let a Republican sponsored bill make a step forward for poor people.
Poor people aren't going to become better off because Democrats are in office. And it really won't come about with a big new bill or because of Republicans or any big tell-tale movement. It will just happen. And it will happen where you don't expect it.
A lot of people who aren't even trying-- at all-- to help the poorest people in the world-- are doing more than any liberal/progressive activist will ever accomplish ever in their lifetime. The greedy, greedy business man or business women in Miami running some warehouse import/export business strictly to rake in the bucks, is creating jobs and opportunities and not even remotely thinking about it in terms of helping people-- but they are doing an immense amount to help people. And, as I've posted here before, but the volunteer who is not seeking noteriety, press, or money, but is just giving, is doing so much to help people.
Anyways, I'll stop there, I won't even go into an argument about 'evolution' and progress.


As an example of the last post, a Democratic representative from Washington state says this bill shouldn't be supported because why mess with a bunch of countries whose economies add up to a comparable size of 'Tampa Florida and its surrounding neighborhoods'. They are a waste of time. Helping these other countries is evidently a waste of time.

CAFTA Trade Agreement

The CAFTA Free Trade Agreement is a prime example of a party changing for the worse.
The Democrats today have become the party of the unions, and by extension, the lower middle class.

But, as all know-- or should know, union workers are not poor people. Anyone working a non-union hourly job knows just how good union workers have it. Fighting for unions is nothing more than an easy way to raise big money while supporting workers making very decent livings-- especially relative to the real poor in this country.
And this is to say nothing of the poorest people in the world-- the people in other countries, so-called 'third world' countries.
The Democrats have traditionally been viewed as a party for the poor. But, they don't do anything for poor people. And in the last couple years, they have become downright hostile toward the real poor of this country, and around the world.
When it came time to cut taxes to ZERO for the lowest income people in this country, the Democrats fought touth-and-nail against the bill. When it comes to free trade agreements that will lead to new jobs and opportunities for the poorest people in other countries-- the Democrats fight touth-and-nail against it. Democrats don't think people in other countries should be able to compete for jobs in the world work force. Democrats believe that if people in other countries get a chance to improve their well being, the environment will be ruined-- all the while they drive cars every day and pollute more in a year then any of these people in other countries will ever pollute.
The moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party is stunning. It will take time to sink in. For the time being, being Repulican, and generally pro-business, is viewed so hesitatingly. But as the dust begins to clear people are going to understand who really is moving this world forward-- for the better. Republican policies are better for all the people of the world. And the future is bright for those willing to believe that new technologies and breakthroughs are going to continually improve the world for the better.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Dem Party Rift

The first indication of a rift comes in the form of Senator Clinton calling for a truce and a coming together.

This is what I am talking about. What rift? This is the question none of all the liberal journalists and media outlets will touch.

The only sign of how deep the frature must be comes from a big insider like Hillary, asking for a united front. Hmmmm, sounds like a larger story here. Most political insiders know about the Dean side of the party and the Hillary side of the party. I have recently spoke with a big Dem, who is on the Dean side, who doesn't even consider Hillary an option for president. When will this type of stuff start getting coverage? My guess: right before the next big election. Because the liberal journalists just don't want to admit that its really there.