For 60 years, Xanthro

...the Democrats dominated as the liberal party. If liberals are such a small and insignificant minority, how do you explain that?

nerdnam

-------------------------------------------

Because it never happened. The Democratic party has not be liberal for 60 years. 40 plus years ago the Democratic party was more conservative than the Republicans.

The South was dominated by Democrats 40-60 years ago, now it's dominated by Republicans.

I'm not saying the Democrats should revert to their racist past, because that's just disgusting, but to argue that Democrats have been liberal for 60 years is ignoring history.

No liberal Democrat has ever been elected President, while some were courageous enough to fight for civil rights, people like LBJ and JFK would not be considered liberal by today's standards.

While I feel the country is slowing moving toward more liberal ideals, such as gay marriage, it's still decades away. In the interim, the choice is fighting for what you can acheive. Too many of the far left seem to think that accepting what can be acheived now detracts from the future and it does not.

We could have universal Medicare within a year and easily beat the Republicans on this issue alone, but it won't happen because the far left screams that it's not a single payer plan, and hence they oppose it. So what happens, is we have neither universal health insurance, nor a single payer plan, and lose a winning issue for the fall, all while the far left pats itself on the back for having courage.

It's a sad state of affairs.

"Lebanon and Hezbollah want Israel to stop bombing Lebanese targets, leave the Shebaa Farms area it still occupies, return the few Lebanese prisoners it holds,"

The first is a legitimate point, the others are not.

There is no dispute over the Shebaa farms, unless you think that a mugger claiming your wallet is a dispute.

The "dispute" over the Shebaa farms is a fiction invented by Hezbollah to claim that Israel has not withdrawn from Lebanese territory. No rational person, even in Lebanon, considers this legitimate.

Since Israel left Lebanon and thus Hezbollah's reason for existence, it had to come up with an area of conflict.

Plus, Israel is not holding Lebanese prisoners of war. All those captured by Israel were released in a 2004 exchange.

Israel is holding two criminals, and by criminals I mean those who snuck into Lebanon and murdered purely civilians targets, including bashing the head in of a 4 year old girl with the rifle butt of the weapon just used to murder her father in front of her eyes.

To make the claim that Lebanese can sneak into Israel and murder Israeli children, then earn their freedom by having other Lebanese sneak into Isreal and capture soldiers is insane.

Seriously, to whom do politicians owe allegiance?

Lieberman would easily win reelection, whether running as a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It’s ridiculous to speculate that he tried to win the Republican nomination as well because it gains him nothing.

As to the handing the Senate to the Republicans, this is equally intellectually dishonest. Had Liebermann resigned, there is no guarantee that his seat would have stayed Democratic. Changing the Senate make up would have required both his Democratic replacement win, that Gore/Lieberman win, and all the other races have the exact same outcome.

It’s nothing but Fox style reporting. Take a conclusion and try to make evidence fit to support it, rather than actually thinking about what is written.

First, why did the below post receive an editor’s star?

“The thing I like about this story is that it exposes the essentially political nature of the APA. This is the same organization that "voted" to amend the DSM so as to end the longstanding classification of homosexuality as a mental disease or disorder; not because of any new or dispositive psychological science, but rather because of the social/political predilictions of enough of its membership. With science like this, who needs creationism?”

Did it escape Salon that the poster is arguing that Homosexuality is a mental disease or disorder? Because that’s exactly what is being said.

Second, is there a substaintial difference between how pyschologist are working in these interrogation than how they work in police inteerogations? If there is not, then there should be no controvesy.

Third, actual toture is going on, water boarding is torture, when Salon choses to illuminate this dark act, perhaps something stronger than having a female interrogator "invade his personal space," could be chosen as an example.