conservatives love class warfare every bit as much as liberals.

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Insomniator
What liberals try to convey is that it is somehow bad for rich and ultra rich to exist. Simply giving their money to the poor will level things out because it is just a zero sum game. I mean, that makes perfect sense if you are in 3rd grade. Or if Star Trek happens to turn into reality.

The rich in this case however are largely responsible for what 'little' the rest have, and at least everyone in America has a better opportunity to join those rich than anywhere else in the world. Also just making a living in America probably puts you at a better standard of living then much of the rest of the world.

We do have a high standard of living, and yes, sometimes the rich did contribute.
But they did not give it up easily, many many liberals fought tooth and nail, some even died fighting for decent wages, a safe workplace, abolishing child labor, 8 hour workdays, social security so the elderly did not die in the gutters etc. etc. or whatever else gets in the way of their almighty wealth accumulation off the backs of others labor
It is disingenuous to make it out like the rich willingly gave others a chance to get a leg up out of the kindness of their hearts.
If you ever think the wealth addicted mega rich give a shit about you and me then why do you think they move their companies overseas? So they can screw people for the almighty buck of course. Until liberals in those countries sack up and fight back of course.

I would agree with that except the liberal/dem of that time period seem oceans away from the liberal/dem of this period.
The party has been hijacked by the ultra left.

That's inane. You wouldn't know a Leftist! if they collectivized industry and put you in a commune.

Far right thinktanks and pundits have poisoned the thought processes of a generation of self-styled "Conservatives". In that worldview, you're either "one of us!" or a "Leftist!", with anybody more liberal than the John Birch Society obviously being Leftist!...

It's like a contest to see who can move furthest Right w/o actually advocating fascism, who can attract attention to themselves with the most extreme and outrageous raving.

You're no exception, that's for sure. "Hijacked by the ultra left"- w/o any supporting argument, evidence, or supporting opinion whatsoever, as if merely making such an assertion makes it true...

That's mindless parroting of malformed conviction at its finest...

And your wearing blinders as always jhnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
To think that presidential nominees like Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama represent the centrist view in the democratic party to me is indefensible.
There is a more conservative base in that party...esp southern democrats that are being led by the nose at this point.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have yet to support the allegation that Dems have been taken over by Ultra Leftists!, Daniel49- not in any way, shape, or form. That, or your definition of Ultra Leftist! is as I described above- a self-serving absurdity of the far right.

As is common on the Right, apparently the fact that you believe it must mean it's true, right? No further proof is required, obviously, because simulated rationality covers all the bases.

Just repeat continuously as a chant, a mantra, a marching song... any assertion repeated often enough by the right sources makes it true, huh?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You have yet to support the allegation that Dems have been taken over by Ultra Leftists!, Daniel49- not in any way, shape, or form. That, or your definition of Ultra Leftist! is as I described above- a self-serving absurdity of the far right.

As is common on the Right, apparently the fact that you believe it must mean it's true, right? No further proof is required, obviously, because simulated rationality covers all the bases.

Just repeat continuously as a chant, a mantra, a marching song... any assertion repeated often enough by the right sources makes it true, huh?

Brother. I just gave you an example and true to form you ignore it.
The recent stream of presidential nominees I provided is an example of how the far left now has control of the democratic party.
Lets take a true democrat centrist like Liberman and examine how the Dem leadership tried to railroad him out of town.
Its the likes of Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi who have reigns of your party now. Not the center to conservative part of the party.
But why am I wasting the time typing? You will just ignore the points and crank up the hyperbole machine again.

 

[Jhhnn]

You merely label those nominees as "Ultra Leftist!", Daniel49, w/o the slightest bit of authentication beyond your own twisted and crippled intellectual shortcomings.

What's "Ultra Leftist!" about any policy that any of them have ever advocated? As compared to what? One of Ayn Rand's childish tomes?

You make no points beyond mere assertion of opinion as if it were fact, revealing that you are, indeed, a victim of simulated rationality, of the worst sort of propaganda.

Anybody who's truly rational must, by necessity, question the so-called "conservative authorities" who led us into the invasion of Iraq and right off of an economic precipice, even as they assaulted civil liberties, used 9/11 as a bludgeon to beat down their domestic political rivals, create acquiescence with threats and bullying, slam the national debt thru the ceiling.

Yeh, they got what they wanted, which turns out to be a massive clusterfuck for the nation as a whole. Musta been the pernicious influence of those "ultra leftists!", right?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You have yet to support the allegation that Dems have been taken over by Ultra Leftists!, Daniel49- not in any way, shape, or form. That, or your definition of Ultra Leftist! is as I described above- a self-serving absurdity of the far right.

As is common on the Right, apparently the fact that you believe it must mean it's true, right? No further proof is required, obviously, because simulated rationality covers all the bases.

Just repeat continuously as a chant, a mantra, a marching song... any assertion repeated often enough by the right sources makes it true, huh?

Brother. I just gave you an example and true to form you ignore it.
The recent stream of presidential nominees I provided is an example of how the far left now has control of the democratic party.
Lets take a true democrat centrist like Liberman and examine how the Dem leadership tried to railroad him out of town.
Its the likes of Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi who have reigns of your party now. Not the center to conservative part of the party.
But why am I wasting the time typing? You will just ignore the points and crank up the hyperbole machine again.

Calling people like Obama "ultra left" and people like Lieberman "centrist" is hyperbole, if you ask me. You're right, Obama doesn't represent the centrist part of the Democratic party...he represents the centrist views of the entire country, left AND right.

Centrist means liberal and conservative views, your idea of centrist seems to be the center of the conservative viewpoint...which is not the same thing at all. More liberal than you does not mean "ultra liberal", in fact, it probably STILL means pretty conservative.

And he problem with Lieberman isn't his moderate views, it's that, despite his pretty clear ideological agreement with the Democrats, he decided to pretty heavily support the Republicans...whom he shares almost no views with. Centrist or not, his problem is that he's an idiot.

 

[DealMonkey]

Yeah, no kidding, Lieberman's no moderate/centrist Democrat, rather he's a Republican who happens to belong to the wrong party. Reminds me of that red-faced moron Zell Miller, who was too dumb to know he was a Republican and refused to switch parties out of some sort of age-induced stubborn streak.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
What I am saying is that the liberal/democrat party uses the take from the rich give to the poor idea for most of its votes. If you look up liberal ideas online it certainly doesn't sound much like what you'd hear from someone in my idiot family, or what I see one television.

The problem is that "take from the rich and give to the poor" is such a vague, generalized idea that it doesn't really MEAN anything. You attempt to use a phrase with a negative connotation to tar the Democrats, but the truth is that Republicans support the exact same idea. Even the most extreme fair taxers talk about flat tax rates, which STILL means the rich pay more and the poor get more. Your attack applies to EVERYONE...just slightly more to the Democrats. And it's pretty ridiculous to claim that the main policy difference is in the marginal variation between tax rates that Democrats and Republicans represent.

A far better debate would be about HOW the money is used. Democrats want to take from the rich and the poor and put the money into schools that are sometimes literally falling apart. Republicans want to take from the rich and the poor and put the money into no-bid contracts at companies with very close ties to Republican politicians. Or maybe I'm wrong, but why don't we argue a point that's not completely ridiculous. Nobody is a socialist, leave that kind of brainless bullshit for people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Obama is busily proving that he couldn't be less interested in enacting a "ultra-left liberal" agenda. His appointments already show an even stronger move to the center-right, pro-business politics of the pre-Reagan Republican Party. Witness his figurative embrace of Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean's departure from the DNC, and the appointment of right-wing "Democrat" and bitter Dean opponent Rahm Emmanuel as Obama's Chief of Staff.

What constitutes the "center" in American politics depends very much on whether the policies of the party in power are perceived as successful. Had Bush been perceived as a successful president then his policies - massive tax cuts for the wealthy, foreign adventurism, demolition of regulatory systems - would have defined the center for the next president. Obama and the Congressional Democrats face the opportunity to define a whole new "center" based on the policies and laws they adopt.

 

[daniel49]

they are to the left compared with thier own colleagues not to any ideals of mine jhhnn.
Text

Obama 95.5% more liberal on key votes then the rest of the senate in 2007
This is a Senate with 49 Dems, 49 Rep, and 2 independants.

Yet Obama is right at the top at 95.5 compared to your last candidates rating of 79.9%.
Your party moved further to the left.
Deny it 10 more times and it will not change the facts.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49
they are to the left compared with thier own colleagues not to any ideals of mine jhhnn.
Text

Obama 95.5% more liberal on key votes then the rest of the senate in 2007
This is a Senate with 49 Dems, 49 Rep, and 2 independants.

Yet Obama is right at the top at 95.5 compared to your last candidates rating of 79.9%.
Your party moved further to the left.
Deny it 10 more times and it will not change the facts.

The explanation of the methods used to determine those numbers are confusing enough that I'm not convinced they aren't rigged...but even if the number is accurate, it's meaningless. Left, right and center are all relative terms determined by the country as a whole...not a sample of senate votes. Who's to say that those votes, or how senators voted on them, represent a perfect example of the political spectrum?

Look at it this way, assuming a WHOLE lot of things you haven't even tried to prove, Kerry lost despite being "less liberal" than Obama...who beat McCain like a rented gong. If our party is moving to the left, then so is the country. What is "centrist" obviously changes over time, and considering the growing number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate, maybe "left" is the new "center".

Of course that's assuming those numbers mean very much, which I'm not convinced of. Too much of the methods behind the numbers are obfuscated for me to even be convinced that the study got the liberal and conservative sides of the issues right.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's one of the lamest links on the internet, daniel49. Any Dem who's recently run for president has automagically been "The Most Libruhl! OMFG!" of all Dems, according to them. Even that would hardly qualify them as "Ultra Leftist!", for anybody whose views are this side of Coulter's....

Give us policy statements, bills they've authored, etc. and so forth if you want to label them "ultra-leftist!"- don't just parrot the talking points you've come to believe in for no good reason other than your Faith! in the Conservative Cause!, whatever that happens to be ATM... whatever Rush or Hannity said a few minutes ago...

Nevermind what they said last week or last year- doesn't matter, right? I mean, it's Obama's recession, after all...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The problem is that "take from the rich and give to the poor" is such a vague, generalized idea that it doesn't really MEAN anything. You attempt to use a phrase with a negative connotation to tar the Democrats, but the truth is that Republicans support the exact same idea. Even the most extreme fair taxers talk about flat tax rates, which STILL means the rich pay more and the poor get more. Your attack applies to EVERYONE...just slightly more to the Democrats. And it's pretty ridiculous to claim that the main policy difference is in the marginal variation between tax rates that Democrats and Republicans represent.

And there are many plus to a flat tax. Simplicity being the biggest point.

A far better debate would be about HOW the money is used. Democrats want to take from the rich and the poor and put the money into schools that are sometimes literally falling apart. Republicans want to take from the rich and the poor and put the money into no-bid contracts at companies with very close ties to Republican politicians.

This is just nonsense. No bid contract exist under any administration. Not because of poltiical paybacks, but there are some contracts that have to be somewhat open ended and only a handful companies are qualified to do them. Most government contract are not no bid.

And as far as schools go, democrats want to throw more money at the status quo of broken school, where as republicans want vouchers that actually get kids out of broken schools. I dont think there is a single one of our politicians in DC that send their kids to the public schools there. Even the a signficant portion of teachers there dont send their kids to the public schools. Lets fix what is broken and not subsidize incompetence when it comes to our kids.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
they are to the left compared with thier own colleagues not to any ideals of mine jhhnn.
Text

Obama 95.5% more liberal on key votes then the rest of the senate in 2007
This is a Senate with 49 Dems, 49 Rep, and 2 independants.

Yet Obama is right at the top at 95.5 compared to your last candidates rating of 79.9%.
Your party moved further to the left.
Deny it 10 more times and it will not change the facts.

The explanation of the methods used to determine those numbers are confusing enough that I'm not convinced they aren't rigged...but even if the number is accurate, it's meaningless. Left, right and center are all relative terms determined by the country as a whole...not a sample of senate votes. Who's to say that those votes, or how senators voted on them, represent a perfect example of the political spectrum?

Look at it this way, assuming a WHOLE lot of things you haven't even tried to prove, Kerry lost despite being "less liberal" than Obama...who beat McCain like a rented gong. If our party is moving to the left, then so is the country. What is "centrist" obviously changes over time, and considering the growing number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate, maybe "left" is the new "center".

Of course that's assuming those numbers mean very much, which I'm not convinced of. Too much of the methods behind the numbers are obfuscated for me to even be convinced that the study got the liberal and conservative sides of the issues right.

I applaud you for at least for looking at the method and trying to understand it. I'm betting thats more then jhhnn did.
Kerry lost because he was to liberal. The difference for Obama was the anti-bush backlash.
Even with the backlash and the timing of the economic woes his popular vote was still only 52%.
That is the same type of backlash that gave Republicans control of congress a while back.
That pendulum swings both ways.
Having said that even though his voting record has been the most liberal in the Senate, I believe Obama will be forced to govern more to the right.
Obama must increase his base to govern effectively and thats the only direction he has to go.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
This is just nonsense. No bid contract exist under any administration. Not because of poltiical paybacks, but there are some contracts that have to be somewhat open ended and only a handful companies are qualified to do them. Most government contract are not no bid.

What an unfortunate use of words, Charrison.

Roughly half of the money spent on all federal contracts in 2006 was awarded with little or no competition, according to a congressional report released yesterday.

The report, prepared by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for its chairman, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), found that the federal government spent $412.1 billion on procurement last year. Of that, $206.9 billion, or 50.2 percent, was awarded through contracts that required either no bidding process, had limited competition or otherwise fell short of "full and open competition."

No-bid contracts alone amounted to $103 billion in 2006, a 43 percent jump from the previous year, the report said.

The report also said that audits and investigations had found that 187 contracts, valued at $1.1 trillion, "have been plagued by waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2007062702772.html

So back here in reality, MOST contracts awarded in '06 were either no-bid or fell woefully short of full and open competition.

That's been one of my hugest beefs with the current administration. They've talked privatization like it's a new religion, and yet they have apparently forgotten that the entire purpose of privatizing government functions is to save money.

Duh, fucking duh, comes to mind.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
This is just nonsense. No bid contract exist under any administration. Not because of poltiical paybacks, but there are some contracts that have to be somewhat open ended and only a handful companies are qualified to do them. Most government contract are not no bid.

What an unfortunate use of words, Charrison.

Roughly half of the money spent on all federal contracts in 2006 was awarded with little or no competition, according to a congressional report released yesterday.

The report, prepared by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for its chairman, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), found that the federal government spent $412.1 billion on procurement last year. Of that, $206.9 billion, or 50.2 percent, was awarded through contracts that required either no bidding process, had limited competition or otherwise fell short of "full and open competition."

No-bid contracts alone amounted to $103 billion in 2006, a 43 percent jump from the previous year, the report said.

The report also said that audits and investigations had found that 187 contracts, valued at $1.1 trillion, "have been plagued by waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2007062702772.html

So back here in reality, MOST contracts awarded in '06 were either no-bid or fell woefully short of full and open competition.

That's been one of my hugest beefs with the current administration. They've talked privatization like it's a new religion, and yet they have apparently forgotten that the entire purpose of privatizing government functions is to save money.

Duh, fucking duh, comes to mind.

That report lumped everything into a one pile. There is a big different between no bid and a lack of bidders showing up.

I will agree with you that contracting work out is not always the best solution, but in many cases it is. But replacing government fraud waste and abuse with contracted out government waste and abuse serves nobody well.

 

[Jhhnn]

From daniel49, wrt the "study" he cites-

I applaud you for at least for looking at the method and trying to understand it. I'm betting thats more then jhhnn did.

Their methodology is obvious- pick whatever votes make the Dems' current candidate seem to be the most Liberal, whether that's Gore, Kerry, or Obama, obfuscate that under a few layers of simulated rationality, and presto! ontology triumphs!

None of which justifies the charge you made earlier, that the Dems have been taken over by "Ultra Leftists!"... you need to substantiate it, or admit that it's not true, take your pick...

Or just wander off, divert, pretend, like Dick Cheney, that "I never said that!"...

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: daniel49

I would agree with that except the liberal/dem of that time period seem oceans away from the liberal/dem of this period.
The party has been hijacked by the ultra left.

If anything the left back then were far more "radical". socialism was not a dirty word, we had Socialist presidents for christsakes actually getting more votes then Nader or Ron Paul can get nowadays right out in the open.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...7/74/Debs_campaign.jpg

Communism looked like it was feasible and would happen, actually to a lot of people it was inevitable. The average worker was enthusiastic about being part of a union and protests by leftists a lot of times led to violence and murder by the government.


You seriously think Howard Dean Al Gore or Obama are anywhere near as radical as Emma Goldman? Seriously???
"No real social change has ever been brought about without a revolution... revolution is but thought carried into action."
Emma Goldman

One cannot be too extreme in dealing with social ills; the extreme thing is generally the true thing.
Emma Goldman


Now how the hell is the Democrat party ultra leftist nowadays? When is the last time you remember seeing communists/anarchists rioting in the streets and people dying?

You whole premise is bunk. The Democratic party has if anything has swung far far to the right since the 20-30s when they won workers the rights I mentioned in the earlier post.
As far as political structure of liberals:
When is the last time the IWW had political power? The IWW is a flyspeck represented by a few dozen starbucks workers! Give me a break dude. You are totally lost in foxnews bullshit you do not know which way is up anymore.

When party members of the Dems start proudly quoting Marx, wear Commie pins on their lapels and burn down capitalist institutions out in the open then come talk to us about the party being taken over by ultra-leftists.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: daniel49

I would agree with that except the liberal/dem of that time period seem oceans away from the liberal/dem of this period.
The party has been hijacked by the ultra left.

If anything the left back then were far more "radical". socialism was not a dirty word, we had Socialist presidents for christsakes actually getting more votes then Nader or Ron Paul can get nowadays right out in the open.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...7/74/Debs_campaign.jpg

Communism looked like it was feasible and would happen, actually to a lot of people it was inevitable. The average worker was enthusiastic about being part of a union and protests by leftists a lot of times led to violence and murder by the government.


You seriously think Howard Dean Al Gore or Obama are anywhere near as radical as Emma Goldman? Seriously???
"No real social change has ever been brought about without a revolution... revolution is but thought carried into action."
Emma Goldman

One cannot be too extreme in dealing with social ills; the extreme thing is generally the true thing.
Emma Goldman


Now how the hell is the Democrat party ultra leftist nowadays? When is the last time you remember seeing communists/anarchists rioting in the streets and people dying?

You whole premise is bunk. The Democratic party has if anything has swung far far to the right since the 20-30s when they won workers the rights I mentioned in the earlier post.
As far as political structure of liberals:
When is the last time the IWW had political power? The IWW is a flyspeck represented by a few dozen starbucks workers! Give me a break dude. You are totally lost in foxnews bullshit you do not know which way is up anymore.

When party members of the Dems start proudly quoting Marx, wear Commie pins on their lapels and burn down capitalist institutions out in the open then come talk to us about the party being taken over by ultra-leftists.

>>>>I'm assuming you mean socialist candidates not socialist presidents.

>>>>And how in the world do you leap from Democrats in power to some nutjob anarchist?
Did she run the DNC was she the Democrats Candidate? Hell no, she was nobody.
There are plenty of anarchists today also , because they existed then is irrelevent.

>>>>IWW? are you trying to say IWA? As A member of the IWA, I assure you we don't represent Starbucks. ITs political importance is demised only because there are fewer Jobs in those Industries now. Believe me they still pump Millions in though.

>>>>Stop typing. Now look up to your ceiling.
Thats up. Another of your statements established as erroneous
And in case your still confused look at your feet. Thats down.

>>>>I do not think the Democratic party is Marxist and I have no Idea why you think I did.
I would view it as tipping in more of a socialist direction.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
they are to the left compared with thier own colleagues not to any ideals of mine jhhnn.
Text

Obama 95.5% more liberal on key votes then the rest of the senate in 2007
This is a Senate with 49 Dems, 49 Rep, and 2 independants.

Yet Obama is right at the top at 95.5 compared to your last candidates rating of 79.9%.
Your party moved further to the left.
Deny it 10 more times and it will not change the facts.

The explanation of the methods used to determine those numbers are confusing enough that I'm not convinced they aren't rigged...but even if the number is accurate, it's meaningless. Left, right and center are all relative terms determined by the country as a whole...not a sample of senate votes. Who's to say that those votes, or how senators voted on them, represent a perfect example of the political spectrum?

Look at it this way, assuming a WHOLE lot of things you haven't even tried to prove, Kerry lost despite being "less liberal" than Obama...who beat McCain like a rented gong. If our party is moving to the left, then so is the country. What is "centrist" obviously changes over time, and considering the growing number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate, maybe "left" is the new "center".

Of course that's assuming those numbers mean very much, which I'm not convinced of. Too much of the methods behind the numbers are obfuscated for me to even be convinced that the study got the liberal and conservative sides of the issues right.

I applaud you for at least for looking at the method and trying to understand it. I'm betting thats more then jhhnn did.
Kerry lost because he was to liberal. The difference for Obama was the anti-bush backlash.
Even with the backlash and the timing of the economic woes his popular vote was still only 52%.
That is the same type of backlash that gave Republicans control of congress a while back.
That pendulum swings both ways.
Having said that even though his voting record has been the most liberal in the Senate, I believe Obama will be forced to govern more to the right.
Obama must increase his base to govern effectively and thats the only direction he has to go.

Fine, but that's all interpretation. And no offense, but you're hardly an unbiased source for that kind of interpretation.

Liberal or not, Obama won...which raised the issue of just how bad a word "liberal" really is. You call Kerry "liberal", but claim McCain lost because of "anti-Bush backlash"...which is another way of saying he lost because he was conservative. Liberal is obviously not a label to tar an opponent with, at least no more so than conservative is.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
they are to the left compared with thier own colleagues not to any ideals of mine jhhnn.
Text

Obama 95.5% more liberal on key votes then the rest of the senate in 2007
This is a Senate with 49 Dems, 49 Rep, and 2 independants.

Yet Obama is right at the top at 95.5 compared to your last candidates rating of 79.9%.
Your party moved further to the left.
Deny it 10 more times and it will not change the facts.

The explanation of the methods used to determine those numbers are confusing enough that I'm not convinced they aren't rigged...but even if the number is accurate, it's meaningless. Left, right and center are all relative terms determined by the country as a whole...not a sample of senate votes. Who's to say that those votes, or how senators voted on them, represent a perfect example of the political spectrum?

Look at it this way, assuming a WHOLE lot of things you haven't even tried to prove, Kerry lost despite being "less liberal" than Obama...who beat McCain like a rented gong. If our party is moving to the left, then so is the country. What is "centrist" obviously changes over time, and considering the growing number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate, maybe "left" is the new "center".

Of course that's assuming those numbers mean very much, which I'm not convinced of. Too much of the methods behind the numbers are obfuscated for me to even be convinced that the study got the liberal and conservative sides of the issues right.

I applaud you for at least for looking at the method and trying to understand it. I'm betting thats more then jhhnn did.
Kerry lost because he was to liberal. The difference for Obama was the anti-bush backlash.
Even with the backlash and the timing of the economic woes his popular vote was still only 52%.
That is the same type of backlash that gave Republicans control of congress a while back.
That pendulum swings both ways.
Having said that even though his voting record has been the most liberal in the Senate, I believe Obama will be forced to govern more to the right.
Obama must increase his base to govern effectively and thats the only direction he has to go.

Fine, but that's all interpretation. And no offense, but you're hardly an unbiased source for that kind of interpretation.
Liberal or not, Obama won...which raised the issue of just how bad a word "liberal" really is. You call Kerry "liberal", but claim McCain lost because of "anti-Bush backlash"...which is another way of saying he lost because he was conservative. Liberal is obviously not a label to tar an opponent with, at least no more so than conservative is.

:Q

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: daniel49

I would agree with that except the liberal/dem of that time period seem oceans away from the liberal/dem of this period.
The party has been hijacked by the ultra left.

If anything the left back then were far more "radical". socialism was not a dirty word, we had Socialist presidents for christsakes actually getting more votes then Nader or Ron Paul can get nowadays right out in the open.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...7/74/Debs_campaign.jpg

Communism looked like it was feasible and would happen, actually to a lot of people it was inevitable. The average worker was enthusiastic about being part of a union and protests by leftists a lot of times led to violence and murder by the government.


You seriously think Howard Dean Al Gore or Obama are anywhere near as radical as Emma Goldman? Seriously???
"No real social change has ever been brought about without a revolution... revolution is but thought carried into action."
Emma Goldman

One cannot be too extreme in dealing with social ills; the extreme thing is generally the true thing.
Emma Goldman


Now how the hell is the Democrat party ultra leftist nowadays? When is the last time you remember seeing communists/anarchists rioting in the streets and people dying?

You whole premise is bunk. The Democratic party has if anything has swung far far to the right since the 20-30s when they won workers the rights I mentioned in the earlier post.
As far as political structure of liberals:
When is the last time the IWW had political power? The IWW is a flyspeck represented by a few dozen starbucks workers! Give me a break dude. You are totally lost in foxnews bullshit you do not know which way is up anymore.

When party members of the Dems start proudly quoting Marx, wear Commie pins on their lapels and burn down capitalist institutions out in the open then come talk to us about the party being taken over by ultra-leftists.

>>>>I'm assuming you mean socialist candidates not socialist presidents.

>>>>And how in the world do you leap from Democrats in power to some nutjob anarchist?
Did she run the DNC was she the Democrats Candidate? Hell no, she was nobody.
There are plenty of anarchists today also , because they existed then is irrelevent.

>>>>IWW? are you trying to say IWA? As A member of the IWA, I assure you we don't represent Starbucks. ITs political importance is demised only because there are fewer Jobs in those Industries now. Believe me they still pump Millions in though.

>>>>Stop typing. Now look up to your ceiling.
Thats up. Another of your statements established as erroneous
And in case your still confused look at your feet. Thats down.

>>>>I do not think the Democratic party is Marxist and I have no Idea why you think I did.
I would view it as tipping in more of a socialist direction.

You said "ultra-leftists". One of the most popular leftists EVER in this country is Emma Goldman. She won us many of the freedoms I was speaking of before. The ones you said were won by Democrats who were far less "ultra-leftist" then nowadays.

And yes, I meant IWW (the wobblies), you may want to Wiki the IWW then, it used to be the defacto political power of the liberal movement before WW1 when Liberals were getting a lot of things done quickly and shaping our society/the modern liberal mindset/philosophy we take for granted nowadays.
If you are in a Union then you should know the song we sing "Solidarity Forever" at gatherings (usually intoxicated).
That is a IWW song from 1916, still sung across the world today! (although quite slurred at times)

If you do not know something and or wrong please do not try to spin it or deny what you said with me. I will call you out. I am not going to start calling you names for not knowing something or making a mistake. I am not petty like that Daniel.


As far as calling Emma a nutjob anarchist, this is a smear that goes back to turn of the century after the anarchist scare after McKinnley was assassinated (and Emma blamed), back then the Democratic party were not exactly progressives. The Democratic party has pretty much absorbed what Emma started (Progressive movement) since the 1960s civil rights movement. Notice how the south and anti-progressives have since fled to the Republican party (thanks in part to Nixons southern strategy)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
they are to the left compared with thier own colleagues not to any ideals of mine jhhnn.
Text

Obama 95.5% more liberal on key votes then the rest of the senate in 2007
This is a Senate with 49 Dems, 49 Rep, and 2 independants.

Yet Obama is right at the top at 95.5 compared to your last candidates rating of 79.9%.
Your party moved further to the left.
Deny it 10 more times and it will not change the facts.

The explanation of the methods used to determine those numbers are confusing enough that I'm not convinced they aren't rigged...but even if the number is accurate, it's meaningless. Left, right and center are all relative terms determined by the country as a whole...not a sample of senate votes. Who's to say that those votes, or how senators voted on them, represent a perfect example of the political spectrum?

Look at it this way, assuming a WHOLE lot of things you haven't even tried to prove, Kerry lost despite being "less liberal" than Obama...who beat McCain like a rented gong. If our party is moving to the left, then so is the country. What is "centrist" obviously changes over time, and considering the growing number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate, maybe "left" is the new "center".

Of course that's assuming those numbers mean very much, which I'm not convinced of. Too much of the methods behind the numbers are obfuscated for me to even be convinced that the study got the liberal and conservative sides of the issues right.

I applaud you for at least for looking at the method and trying to understand it. I'm betting thats more then jhhnn did.
Kerry lost because he was to liberal. The difference for Obama was the anti-bush backlash.
Even with the backlash and the timing of the economic woes his popular vote was still only 52%.
That is the same type of backlash that gave Republicans control of congress a while back.
That pendulum swings both ways.
Having said that even though his voting record has been the most liberal in the Senate, I believe Obama will be forced to govern more to the right.
Obama must increase his base to govern effectively and thats the only direction he has to go.

Fine, but that's all interpretation. And no offense, but you're hardly an unbiased source for that kind of interpretation.
Liberal or not, Obama won...which raised the issue of just how bad a word "liberal" really is. You call Kerry "liberal", but claim McCain lost because of "anti-Bush backlash"...which is another way of saying he lost because he was conservative. Liberal is obviously not a label to tar an opponent with, at least no more so than conservative is.

:Q

The obvious (or maybe not so obvious) addition to that would be that *I'm* not exactly an unbiased observer here either