Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The problem is most liberals don't argue from that stance. Lets take a look at Tom Daschle as an example. He acts like a conservative when he gives speeches at home and a liberal when he is in the senate. Dick Durbin, a senator from my state, does the same thing. The problem I have with liberals are they don't present themselves as liberals. If you want all those things SAY it to the people. Say 'I want to get rid of under god in the pledge' or 'I want to allow gay marriages' or 'I want your 16 year old daughter to be able to get an abortion no matter what you have to say about it!'. The problem of course is they would LOSE so they pretend to be something else. They let liberal and unaccountable judges do their dirty work for them. They rely on the basic nature of the American people to not pay attention to what their congressman votes for.
This is why three times as many Americans say they are conservative as compared to say they are liberal. Liberal is a dirty word, it stands for things the public does not want, and since they can't get it democratically they try to back door their agenda.
|
there's a reason that a lot of liberal politicians don't campaign on these things... because to them they're non-issues. you don't hear anyone campaigning on right to privacy (the 16 year olds having abortions issue) and gay marriage didn't really pick up until after the last election (as far as i noticed).
i bet if you went around and asked a bunch of liberals if they think that "under god" should be in the pledge, most would say no (not because they hate religion, but because of seperation of church and state). but ask them if they really care about it being there, again, they'd probably say no. it wasn't an issue until the dude in california made it one. no one cared before then, most still don't.
i love how you bring up activist judges. you know what i call an "activist judge?" i call one "someone doing their job." a judge is job is to run their court room, make rulings on cases, and interept the law when questioned. it's not like these judges are randomly picking pages from a book of law and saying "hey, lets question this one today." someone is bringing it to them and then they interpret the law and make a ruling. but appearantly if you happen to disagree with their opinion, that makes them an "activist." and you and the ignorant masses have fallen for a sound byte.