New and Not Improved

[Fern]

This country needs change it can believe in.

I always thought this "change" included an end to the bitter partisanship fighting, and demonization of political opponents. Others seem to think (hope) it means turning the great Ship of State sharply to the left.

I optimistically hope his action of recent are aimed at the former

A President, if he is to achieve change, must be persausive. Persuasion requires a certain amount of trust on the part of those who are to be pursuased. If they do not trust you at all, you will not be able to pursuade them.

At the most elemental level, trust requires a sense of familiarity and a belief in a shared set of perspective/feelingsl some important common ground.

I suspect Obama's campaign, in this early stage (he's behind McCain in terms of where they are in their playbooks given his recent victory as unofficially offical Dem nominee), is in the *familiarity stage*. He wants & needs our trust. If he's gonna be *eveybody's President*, he's gonna have to triangulate IMO. To do otherwise leads to division, and I see no "change" in that.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

This country needs change it can believe in.

I always thought this "change" included an end to the bitter partisanship fighting, and demonization of political opponents. Others seem to think (hope) it means turning the great Ship of State sharply to the left.

I optimistically hope his action of recent are aimed at the former

A President, if he is to achieve change, must be persausive. Persuasion requires a certain amount of trust on the part of those who are to be pursuased. If they do not trust you at all, you will not be able to pursuade them.

At the most elemental level, trust requires a sense of familiarity and a belief in a shared set of perspective/feelingsl some important common ground.

I suspect Obama's campaign, in this early stage (he's behind McCain in terms of where they are in their playbooks given his recent victory as unofficially offical Dem nominee), is in the *familiarity stage*. He wants & needs our trust. If he's gonna be *eveybody's President*, he's gonna have to triangulate IMO. To do otherwise leads to division, and I see no "change" in that.

Fern

The word change is quickly becoming perhaps the most abused word in the election.

You want change? OK, Obama is going to bring about a novel combination of communism and fascism, and push an amendment to replace the constitution with one making him and his descendants the permant kings of America, aboloshing Congress and the courts, and everyone will have to sing the Obama anthem daily, following the lead of North Korea. There's your change.

The thing I'm criticizing most with that little comment is how people are saying 'well, he says change, so he better do what I want as change'.

Obama's partly to blame for not defining 'change' better, but politically that serves him ok for now that 'change' letting people think what they want, when the current government is seen as a disaster, helps him. But he's going to have to define it more, because he can't give people mutually contradictory things. But in the meantime, I'd like to see people stop trying to say that if they don't get THEIR change they want, then he doesn't mean 'change'.

The debate IMO should just keep discussing the specific changes people want and the merits of the issue, not use the 'he has to because he said change' argument.

Fern, a reason I quoted your point, who says that tri-angulation has to be the 'change' (that's what we get from a lot of politicians including Bill and Hillary). Who says that he has to appeal to the right by giving them Republican solutions, instead of doing like FDR and giving them better solutions and letting them come around?

There are different ways for him to 'build trust', the most common probably is to appeal to common basic interests without offering the specific agenda the group wants.

JFK was a master of this in his speaking style, for example when he wanted to say something liberal, he'd say it with something conservative, so you'd get quotes like 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' as a typical structure. If he wanted to talk about drawing the line to not send troops to Vietnam, instead of saying that, he'd talk about how our policy was wanting them to win, and how we could provide assistance, but he'd close with 'but it's their war to win or lose'.

All Obama needs to do is to appeal to basic common interests, he doesn't need to give Republicans a lot of bad policies they want.

He's been disappointng the liberals since he secured the nomination, though not enough for most to do more than not care for the 'effective campaigning' - as the NY Times said.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Even sociopaths can sound the most sincere because they have no guilt (because they have no conscience)

I think you are sincere when you say that.

And sadly, I think the NYT is right on in this editorial. PJ and other righties are not.

ummm I agreed with the NY Times which means I am right too so

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Blah,blah,blah..talking out my ass..blah,blah,blah.

:roll: You just don't get it. People aren't voting for Obama as much as they are voting against 4 more years of the last 8 years. Americans are sick to their stomachs over what you and your party did to our great country and want no part of you guys anymore.

You just don't get it.

When the NY Times starts to attack a liberal such as a Obama it IS a big deal. It is one thing for me or people on the right to call him a flip-flopper, but it is a TOTALLY different thing when the NY Times does the same thing.

That is why I posted this OP-ED.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Blah,blah,blah..talking out my ass..blah,blah,blah.

:roll: You just don't get it. People aren't voting for Obama as much as they are voting against 4 more years of the last 8 years. Americans are sick to their stomachs over what you and your party did to our great country and want no part of you guys anymore.

You just don't get it.

When the NY Times starts to attack a liberal such as a Obama it IS a big deal. It is one thing for me or people on the right to call him a flip-flopper, but it is a TOTALLY different thing when the NY Times does the same thing.

That is why I posted this OP-ED.

That's because Obama isn't your typical liberal. He has a conservative streak in him. The NYT glossed over that fact and claimed that he flip-flopped on the religious issue when he did no such thing. Like I said earlier, they stretched reality in order to fit their article.

 

[ProfJohn]

Explain to me this conservative streak? What conservative ideas does he support and when and how has he supported them?

About the only thing he has in common with conservatives is that he goes to church.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Fern, a reason I quoted your point, who says that tri-angulation has to be the 'change' (that's what we get from a lot of politicians including Bill and Hillary). Who says that he has to appeal to the right by giving them Republican solutions, instead of doing like FDR and giving them better solutions and letting them come around?

There are different ways for him to 'build trust', the most common probably is to appeal to common basic interests without offering the specific agenda the group wants.

JFK was a master of this in his speaking style, for example when he wanted to say something liberal, he'd say it with something conservative, so you'd get quotes like 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' as a typical structure. If he wanted to talk about drawing the line to not send troops to Vietnam, instead of saying that, he'd talk about how our policy was wanting them to win, and how we could provide assistance, but he'd close with 'but it's their war to win or lose'.

To me triangulation != capitulation.

IMO, JFK's famous statement (you quote above) is a perfect example of verbal triangulation. Everybody's concerns are addressed (could say everybody get's what they want) and we get to *move ahead*.

I'll say again, I think many times Repubs and Dems agree on what problems to address, the point of contention is the how.

Iraq, energy policy, gas prices, health care - I think we all agree we need to tackle these. The question is "how" and I don't forsee any problems with some triangulation for 90% of the population.

Example - gas prices. We now see even the Dem voters approve of more drilling. OK, drill some more and also raise CAFE standards. Only the hard core fringe is angry (no drillin at any cost, or the gov imposing standards is a Commie-type attack on my rights etc).

As far as the 2nd Amendment issue - IMO one of the Dems biggest problems is never knowing when to pick a fight, or which fight to pick. If he went off on some crusade against the 2nd, like Repubs tend to do on abortion, he'd be stupid. Wrong battle at the wrong time, and a Prez can't do much about it anyway. Some would say he could appoint SCOTUS judges etc. But the oldest ones are Libs anyway. He'll most likley just be replacing libs with other libs. I.e., no change at all.

The last thing we need this election to be about is Gun Rights vs Abortion. Both are irrelevent IMO.

I'm predicting (a thing I'm not good at) he'll start accelerating his focus on policy positions around the end of Summer when people are paying more attention. Then we'll have a btter idea of what he's about.

Fern

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Explain to me this conservative streak? What conservative ideas does he support and when and how has he supported them?

About the only thing he has in common with conservatives is that he goes to church.

Yes he goes to church. He also supports that government program Bush started that has to do with churches. He supports bombing Al Qaeda in Pakistan. He supports ethics reform. He supports Israel.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with more.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Blah,blah,blah..talking out my ass..blah,blah,blah.

:roll: You just don't get it. People aren't voting for Obama as much as they are voting against 4 more years of the least 8 years. Americans are sick to their stomachs over what you and your party did to our great country and want no part of you guys anymore.

shouldn't we be voting for people, not parties?

Nope, it's yet another lesser of two evils election, and we all know how well that went in '04.

Not everyone believes that. I myself believe Obama can do great things for this country. If I am wrong then we still fall back on the lesser of two evils.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Ever notice how deliberate and measured Obama is when he speaks in reply to a question? People assume its because hes intelligent when hes really just trying to carefully construct answers that don't give away what he really thinks. One half of him is trying to talk while hiding the other half. Obama is as two faced as they come. Even sociopaths can sound the most sincere because they have no guilt (because they have no conscience)

I assume he's deliberate, measured, and totally fucking fabulous because he's a GAY-HOMOSEXUAL. He doesn't read the hetero-centric tele-prompters--no no. He is being fed GAY-HOMOSEXUAL propaganda through GAY SATELITES which were sent into orbit in the '60s by the Dutch. It's all a part of a master plan.



You know what, Butterbean, I LIKE YOU. You're not like the other
people, here, in the trailer park.

Oh, don't go get me wrong. They're fine people, they're
good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe
watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57, maybe kick
back a cool, Coors 16-ouncer. They're good, fine people,
Butterbean. But they don't know ... what the queers are doing
to the soil!

You know that Jonny Wurster kid, the kid that delivers papers
in the neighborhood. He's a foreign kid. Some of the neighbors
say he smokes crack, but I don't believe it.

Anyway, for his tenth birthday, all he wanted was a Burrow Owl.
Kept bugging his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow owl. I'll never
ask for anything else as long as I live." So the guy
breaks down and buys him a burrow owl.

Anyway, 10:30, the other night, I go out in my yard, and there's
the Wurster kid, looking up in the tree. I say, "What are
you looking for?" He says "I'm looking for my burrow owl."
I say, "Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick. Everybody knows
the burrow owl lives. In a hole. In the ground. Why the hell do you
think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?" Now Butterbean, do you
think a kid like that is going to know what the queers are
doing to the soil?

I first became aware of this about ten years ago, the summer
my oldest boy, Bill Jr. died. You know that carnival comes into
town every year? Well this year they came through with a ride
called The Mixer. The man said, "Keep your head, and arms, inside
the Mixer at all times." But Bill Jr, he was a DAAAREDEVIL, just
like his old man. He was leaning out saying "Hey everybody,
Look at me! Look at me!" Pow! He was decapitated! They found
his head over by the snow cone concession.

A few days after that, I open up the mail. And there's a pamphlet
in there. From Pueblo, Colorado, and it's addressed to Bill, Jr.
And it's entitled, "Do you know what the queers are doing to our
soil?"

Now, Butterbean, if you look at the soil around any large US city,
there's a big undeground homosexual population. Des Moines, Iowa,
for an example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Butterbean.
You can't build on it; you can't grow anything in it. The government
says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on,
Butterbean. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens.
They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to
God.

You know what, Butterbean, I like you. You're not like the other
people, here in this trailer park.

 

[RKDaley]

^ fvcking hillarious
:laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Blah,blah,blah..talking out my ass..blah,blah,blah.

:roll: You just don't get it. People aren't voting for Obama as much as they are voting against 4 more years of the least 8 years. Americans are sick to their stomachs over what you and your party did to our great country and want no part of you guys anymore.

shouldn't we be voting for people, not parties?

Nope, it's yet another lesser of two evils election, and we all know how well that went in '04.

Not everyone believes that. I myself believe Obama can do great things for this country. If I am wrong then we still fall back on the lesser of two evils.

Well that's nice and it would be great if he does but I'm not expecting it. I just know for sure that we don't need four more years of the last 8 years and that's what'll happen if McCains elected. I know ProJo and his ilk are happy with the way America has floundered during Bushes Presidency, they must as they still support Bush and his clone McSame.

 

[Rainsford]

While the content of this thread is pretty repetitive, what I think is worth noting is the STYLE ProfJohn uses to post this. Now it's pretty obvious that ProfJohn is a dyed in the wool Republican, perhaps more than any other conservative poster on this board. Whatever policy differences exist, the fact is that ProfJohn was going to oppose Obama no matter what the second Obama registered as a Democrat.

And yet this post (and almost every anti-Obama post from ProfJohn) tries very hard to sound like the unbiased narrator conveying information rather than an unpaid Republican pundit. "This issue could really hurt Obama in the fall.", in addition to being featured, virtually without modification, in every single anti-Obama post, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. No mention of opinion on the topic at hand, "the issue" is presented as fact, with the reaction of some public that ProfJohn is implicitly separating himself from being the only unknown factor. The rest of the post pretty much follows the same way, the idea being to convey the idea that the poster couldn't care one way or another about the outcome of "the issue", he just feels it's his patriotic duty to bring it to light.

Of course the reason for this presentation method is pretty self evident. It might be clever if ProfJohn wasn't copying it from folks like Bill O'Reilly, but just like with good old Bill, it's basically an elaborate way to ask a loaded question. This handily gets past having to prove anything negative about a candidate by questioning the IMPACT of the negative trait you want the candidate to have, the implication being that the negative thing has already been proven. And by acting as an uninterested observer when you're anything but, you can help deflect suspicion about what you're doing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Actually Rain I try to provide unbiased OPs in order to keep the thread focused on the ideas on the OP instead of attacks on me.

If you notice that when ever I put in my two cents the thread tends to focus on that and ignores whatever issue I have presented.

If I could I would post OP-EDs without any comment so that the threads would be about the idea of the OP-ED instead of name calling and personal attacks on me.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
Fern, a reason I quoted your point, who says that tri-angulation has to be the 'change' (that's what we get from a lot of politicians including Bill and Hillary). Who says that he has to appeal to the right by giving them Republican solutions, instead of doing like FDR and giving them better solutions and letting them come around?

There are different ways for him to 'build trust', the most common probably is to appeal to common basic interests without offering the specific agenda the group wants.

JFK was a master of this in his speaking style, for example when he wanted to say something liberal, he'd say it with something conservative, so you'd get quotes like 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' as a typical structure. If he wanted to talk about drawing the line to not send troops to Vietnam, instead of saying that, he'd talk about how our policy was wanting them to win, and how we could provide assistance, but he'd close with 'but it's their war to win or lose'.

To me triangulation != capitulation.

IMO, JFK's famous statement (you quote above) is a perfect example of verbal triangulation. Everybody's concerns are addressed (could say everybody get's what they want) and we get to *move ahead*.

Seperate the rhetoric from the policy. Triangulation IMO is about a lot of compromise - and with the radical right involved, excessive compromise a la Clinton.

I think what JFK did was was to use rhetoric to give the impression of balance or triangulation as a way to soften the message of usually a liberal policy.

I guess I should give a lot of credit to his speechwrites Ted Sorenson for that style too. But it's remarkable how often you see it.

I'm not sure it's an obvious lesson for politicians, because I think in other hands it might sound more 'mealy-mouthed' or 'indecisive' if not contradictory.

What Obama is doing is pretty different. The closest he's coming is things like saying he'll try to get amnesty removed from the bill, but he might vote for it regardless.

He's more simply adopting some right-wing positions and defending them. The main area JFK did that was in his real increases in military spending (but also looking to disarm).

So basically, Obama is doing nearly the opposite of JFK, insofar as moving to the right and defending it, instead of adopting a liberal policy and using rhetoric to sell it.

FDR, Truman, and JFK, all of whom denounced the practice of democrats giving Republicans too much 'compromise', I think had a better way.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Fern

This country needs change it can believe in.

I always thought this "change" included an end to the bitter partisanship fighting, and demonization of political opponents. Others seem to think (hope) it means turning the great Ship of State sharply to the left.

I optimistically hope his action of recent are aimed at the former

A President, if he is to achieve change, must be persausive. Persuasion requires a certain amount of trust on the part of those who are to be pursuased. If they do not trust you at all, you will not be able to pursuade them.

At the most elemental level, trust requires a sense of familiarity and a belief in a shared set of perspective/feelingsl some important common ground.

I suspect Obama's campaign, in this early stage (he's behind McCain in terms of where they are in their playbooks given his recent victory as unofficially offical Dem nominee), is in the *familiarity stage*. He wants & needs our trust. If he's gonna be *eveybody's President*, he's gonna have to triangulate IMO. To do otherwise leads to division, and I see no "change" in that.

Fern

Well, Fern, the one thing you haven't accounted for is the fact that the bushistas used 9/11 and an economic downturn to invoke right full rudder and flank speed ahead- damn the torpedoes!

A McCain presidency would simply hold course and speed, while an Obama presidency would clearly steer more to port, if not as much as his more liberal supporters might like...

Actual policy is rarely the same as campaign promises, anyway. We demand lies from our politicians, or at least hedged promises for them to actually receive a majority of votes- that whole "campaign to the middle" ( more accurately, the *perceived* middle) deal we've seen before.

Obama and his more liberal supporters realize that in order to have a successful presidency that he must largely hold to his base, yet must still be willing to engage in sufficient compromise to actually effect any change at all.

We have, apparently, become so accustomed to the Grover Norquist definition of bipartisanship exhibited by the bush admin and repubs in general that we can't recognize the need for the art of politics to be some other way...

The whole bit from loki8481 about voting for the person rather than the party is silly in ways that are hard to describe. The vast majority of today's repub politicians are creations of the party and the rightwing thinktanks- they didn't get where they are through independent thought but rather through being formed into what they are through the use of a recipe and a cookie cutter...
Few would have the vaguest idea what to say or where to stand w/o the RNC and their trusty heartland foundation policy papers to tell them how to act...

Their foreign policy apparatus is neocon to its core, and their economic advisers are totally free-market supply-side dreamers... even as the whole edifice crumbles faster than they can patch it up, the idea that they need to back up and re-evaluate some of their core beliefs is beyond their comprehension...

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit from loki8481 about voting for the person rather than the party is silly in ways that are hard to describe. The vast majority of today's repub politicians are creations of the party and the rightwing thinktanks- they didn't get where they are through independent thought but rather through being formed into what they are through the use of a recipe and a cookie cutter...
Few would have the vaguest idea what to say or where to stand w/o the RNC and their trusty heartland foundation policy papers to tell them how to act...

I find it strange that those on the left can clearly see this on the right and those on the right can clearly see the same thing from the left but few can see that it's happened on both sides

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit from loki8481 about voting for the person rather than the party is silly in ways that are hard to describe. The vast majority of today's repub politicians are creations of the party and the rightwing thinktanks- they didn't get where they are through independent thought but rather through being formed into what they are through the use of a recipe and a cookie cutter...
Few would have the vaguest idea what to say or where to stand w/o the RNC and their trusty heartland foundation policy papers to tell them how to act...

I find it strange that those on the left can clearly see this on the right and those on the right can clearly see the same thing from the left but few can see that it's happened on both sides

Well that's obviously how politics works, you see what you want to see in the opposition. It hardly seems a coincidence that virtually every Obama bashing comment in P&N, for example, is made by someone like ProfJohn who is in the tank for the Republicans (and visa versa, of course). Nobody is "figuring stuff out" or "objectively judging reality", people are just trying to come up with the best attack on the other guy. Listening to folks like ProfJohn bash Obama is like listening to a Coors Light commercial to help you decide what beer to buy.

That said, obviously objective reality does exist, even if everyone is intent on ignoring it. The idea that both parties are identical doesn't seem real likely, there is almost always a "better" choice in any given situation. The trick is to not let your political brain shout down your rational one, and to ignore people who have long ago given up that struggle.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit from loki8481 about voting for the person rather than the party is silly in ways that are hard to describe. The vast majority of today's repub politicians are creations of the party and the rightwing thinktanks- they didn't get where they are through independent thought but rather through being formed into what they are through the use of a recipe and a cookie cutter...
Few would have the vaguest idea what to say or where to stand w/o the RNC and their trusty heartland foundation policy papers to tell them how to act...

I find it strange that those on the left can clearly see this on the right and those on the right can clearly see the same thing from the left but few can see that it's happened on both sides

Well that's obviously how politics works, you see what you want to see in the opposition. It hardly seems a coincidence that virtually every Obama bashing comment in P&N, for example, is made by someone like ProfJohn who is in the tank for the Republicans (and visa versa, of course). Nobody is "figuring stuff out" or "objectively judging reality", people are just trying to come up with the best attack on the other guy. Listening to folks like ProfJohn bash Obama is like listening to a Coors Light commercial to help you decide what beer to buy.

That said, obviously objective reality does exist, even if everyone is intent on ignoring it. The idea that both parties are identical doesn't seem real likely, there is almost always a "better" choice in any given situation. The trick is to not let your political brain shout down your rational one, and to ignore people who have long ago given up that struggle.

I'd say Jhhnn's point a little differently - that whatever the candidates think, 'the machine'for them to get elected leaves them with strong party obligations.

For example, when Rove came up with the re-distrcting between census scheme, I saw a reporter quoting Republicans asy saying they HAD to vote for it because of pressure.

I see the dems as *in dager* of more and more of that pressure, but largely still much more independant in their votes - and that's more the culture of the democratic party, with diverse enough backgrouns that people are going to vote how they like more, though they have some pressure too. But a good example is the recent amnesty bill pushed by the leadership - 128 Dems votes no, 105 yes. That's not the Republican lockstep on important issues (all but one votes yet on that bill).

So, I'm looking less at the individuals' having independant views - there is a general agenda each party has that most in their party largely agree with - than with the issue of how much the party apparatus can twist their arms on votes, and how much the party apparatus gets corrupted (the K Street project being a good example why the Republicans are the larger danger there).

As I've said, I think the American people now have a choice to protect the progressive wing of the Democratic Party as the more 'independant' group, and put them in power to protect more from corruption, because the Republican Party and the corporatized wing of the Democrat Party are already a problem, or they're pretty much screwed to having to get a third party going, with the Refom Party a picture of how well that will likely go.

Whatever Obama's strengths and weaknesses on policy, he's the most independant candidate regarding party obligations and big money donations in a long time.

So his becoming president is likely a good start as well.

The Dems have made some real efforts, though they're not enough, to reduce the role of lobbyists and PAC money. Unfortunately, the media has paid little attention and most Republicans seem too partisan to say they've done something good and side with them when they're right. But they'll ask why the politicians do't do the right thing more of the time.

One more observation: some tend to overemphasize the individual role of the politician because they 'project' how they would want to act if elected, but doing this misses the issue of how constrained the politicians can be. You and I would have a hard time getting elected - it takes a lot of 'favors' and alliances for the most par, and the machine that chooses the endorsed candidates has its own interests. If people recognized that a lot of the politicians resent the same things they do about the system, they'd understand better.

People love to talk about 'electing the best candiate' but rarely realize how much the 'money machine' influences who the people think is the best candidate.

If Hillary's husband weren't Bill, would she have been the second best democrat in the nation to be our president?

 

[StageLeft]

His luster has definetly lost its shine. Definitely.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Ever notice how deliberate and measured Obama is when he speaks in reply to a question? People assume its because hes intelligent when hes really just trying to carefully construct answers that don't give away what he really thinks. One half of him is trying to talk while hiding the other half. Obama is as two faced as they come. Even sociopaths can sound the most sincere because they have no guilt (because they have no conscience)

Have you ever noticed that ALL politicians speak that way? :roll:

It's the way anyone speaks when they know that millions hang on their every word, and millions more are just looking for the slightest misspoke to post on youtube.

Next, we should analyze why you always begin with a false premise in order to generate a ridiculous conclusion. It could be because you are a sociopath, but IMO it's probably because you're an idiot.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
His luster has definetly lost its shine. Definitely.

Compared to McDoofus? Don't let this latest round of propaganda cause you to lose your objectivity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit from loki8481 about voting for the person rather than the party is silly in ways that are hard to describe. The vast majority of today's repub politicians are creations of the party and the rightwing thinktanks- they didn't get where they are through independent thought but rather through being formed into what they are through the use of a recipe and a cookie cutter...
Few would have the vaguest idea what to say or where to stand w/o the RNC and their trusty heartland foundation policy papers to tell them how to act...

I find it strange that those on the left can clearly see this on the right and those on the right can clearly see the same thing from the left but few can see that it's happened on both sides

Please. It's the repubs who are famous for their solidarity and discipline- they're like the political version of Stepford wives.

Dems simply don't have the interlocking structures of thinktanks, foundations, charities, pacs and longtime big money support as repubs. Nor do they use the DNC as a money laundering and favor currying mechanism anywhere near as well as repubs organize the RNC.

Keeping Dems together on any subject is like trying to herd cats. Well, any subject other than the idea that the repubs have to go before we're all ruined...

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Blah,blah,blah..talking out my ass..blah,blah,blah.

:roll: You just don't get it. People aren't voting for Obama as much as they are voting against 4 more years of the last 8 years. Americans are sick to their stomachs over what you and your party did to our great country and want no part of you guys anymore.

You just don't get it.

When the NY Times starts to attack a liberal such as a Obama it IS a big deal. It is one thing for me or people on the right to call him a flip-flopper, but it is a TOTALLY different thing when the NY Times does the same thing.

That is why I posted this OP-ED.

But but but I thought the NYT was just a liberal rag! :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

^ it is a liberal rag, which is why this OP-Ed is so interesting. When you base starts to call you a flip-flopper you have problems.