The liberal super majority.

[Duke{CLR}]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

This is an interesting read on what could be in our future.

[Skud]

Personally,

I don't see how

prescription drug price controls,

union card check (me being a Teamster :D),

representation for D.C. (they are U.S. citizens, are they not?),

eliminating statute of limitations on discrimination suits (as it is now, if a woman finds out that for the past 8 years she's been getting paid less than a man in the same position has been, she can do nothing about it but get a raise at present, since it's been going on past the statute of limitations [and that favors who?: the business who treats the woman with discrimination, to unfairly save a buck]),

ending the Iraq war (bar funding is selective terminology to make it sound like the troops wouldn't even be given a flight home)...we don't have the capital to pay for it, unless we raise taxes ;)

or a windfall tax on oil companies with their world-record profits would be a bad things.

[Duke{CLR}]

Its not just those specific items I don't even know what some of those are. They are all examples of government stepping into business. They raise the cost of doing business which sends jobs elsewhere or raises the cost of the product. Look at what happened to home mortgages when government tried to put fairness in the mix.

I'm sure we can look forward to amnesty for the illegal immigrants heck maybe give them drivers licenses too.

How about some nice liberal judges that will support things like eminent domain for tax purposes and gun control.

Lets not forget the return of the fairness doctrine to try and regulate the content of radio stations. I read somewhere that they have even written part of it that could effect the internet.

For me it all comes down to big government putting it's nose into my business while at the same time taking my money to do what ever it is that they want.

BTW I'm a union member too. ALPA

[Trooper110]

Federal government has to regulate to an extent. Look at the current situation and what happens with more and more deregulation.

[BenKenobi]

Thats actually quite scary... :shock:

[jeffro74]

:|thats sad

[Duke{CLR}]

Federal government has to regulate to an extent. Look at the current situation and what happens with more and more deregulation.

Do windfall profits and spreading the wealth fall under this?

[RyeWhiskey]

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Some will no doubt not like this, but, Liberals are like a vast cult with varying interests. Democracy is great, but liberals version of democracy is government intervention and a curb on community. They are the first to decry, whine, complain, push their smaller views on larger groups, and are the first to try and change things to their viewpoint. They go against the norm, and breed small ultra-liberal radicals who at the base share the same views inadvertantly.

Today is not 1933 or 1965, the viewpoints then weren't as grand as robust as the current infatuation with liberalism. We are in for a change and it won't be for the better. With sweeping majority rule by liberals and ultra-liberals and the ideas that will be pushed, opposition to this will be tantamount to witchery, it almost is now. Go against a liberal and you are almost a criminal. Wait until you can't speak publicly against liberal ideas. Democracy is great, liberalism isn't.

[Duke{CLR}]

Just remember that the political pendulum swings both ways and with after a super majority. After time people will realize that the government will not fulfill their needs and it will swing back. Just like after Carter when Regan won and when the republicans took over the majority after a few years of Clinton. Those were some real conservatives and maybe we will get some down the road.

[Hammy]

Well, the one thing I realize is that the Super Majority is only willing to take credit for positive results. When there is a failure, they will still continue to point at Republicans and "non-believers".

I live near San Francisco- the mecca for all of this kind of thinking. I experience it on a near daily basis at a level most of you will never have the opportunity to see in person. It's the kind of liberalism you only begin to understand after you live here for awhile.

Example: I worked in San Francisco for 5 years, and it was only then that I began to realize that the act of creating change was more important than the reason for it. "I want there to be no cars allowed in San Francisco!" says one person. "but do you know what the impact will be?" responds government- citing economic challenges, reduced business income, and lower income due to fewer people driving into San Francisco to vacation, work, and etc. "I dont care- do it" and in realizing that they can create a huge scene, get lots of attention, and gratification of feeling as if they are becoming great- they press on. Eventually, it is these same people that create the violence in the street- and the cops get blamed.

I have lived here my whole life, and I see the provocation and the outcomes over and over. When they win, it always costs the people 4x thanks to the extra special interest groups that pop their head up the moment there is a hand out to say "me too!" And because they werent factored in, there is no plan, and when there is a budget shortfall here, they blame the Republicans, the california energy crisis and etc.

There is so much to say on this, but I think Rye and Duke are right. The Liberal Super Majority will catch the tiger by the toe, and in their inability to create a conducive vision that is singular, will break down under the weight of their own voices, then fail- and spend the next decade blaming conservatives, marriage, pro-life and etc.

[Hammy]

Navarette is usually on the Democratic side with his view points, leaning liberal on Immigration and etc.

Here he talks about something I mentioned the other day about intolerant liberalism.

Commentary: Liberals let loose on Palin and Joe the Plumber - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/navarrette.liberals/index.html)