When the going gets tough, progressives stack the deck.

[Craig234]

Liberals believe that people are stupid and government is enlightened. Why on Earth would they want to allow stupid people to honestly elect their leaders? Minnesota showed us the brave new liberal world, just keep running Democrat votes back through until you have all the votes you need to declare victory.

More lies from a consistant liar. A very inaccurate history of an election in which the Republicans shamelessly abused the legal system to prevent the clear winer from taking his seat.

But hey, once again, a good defense for the bad behavior of Republicans is a good offsense, so attack the Democrats instead. Like a wife beater saying 'she deserved it'.

 

[Craig234]

All this blathering and not one comment about Soros? How is he different than your pet lament - corporaticity or whatever you call it?

What about Soros? Read the other post, the same rules apply to him. A good rule against the excessive role of money in elections doesn't mean "for Republicans only".

The point is about democracy. Having a rich guy I agree with buy a seat for the good candidate instead of the public electing the bad candidate in a fair election, is wrong, as it violates democracy.

 

[FerrelGeek]

That comes before the review of their content as to whether their a propaganda newtork. The evidence leads to a conclusion that they are.

Yes, we need to stick with reliable sources like msnbc, moveon, huffington, and dailykos.

 

[BoberFett]

Depeneds what you mean fair.

Do you mean 'fair under the rules'? Or do you mean a broader sense of fair?

If you mean the broader sense, do you mean 'one side should follow fair, while the other does not, so that the side following fair loses more elections while the side who does not wins more'?

Do you mean the fairness of the system, of the fairness of the policies that result?

In short, the same rules for fairness of the system apply whether it's a right-wing or left-wing 'rich guy' buying the outcome.

While the rules allow it, it's fair to use them for 'your side' and not let the other side only use them for theirs.

Look at the ease with which self-proclaimed progressives such as Craig lose their morals when it comes to winning. The concentration of wealth is bad, until it supports Craig's agenda. Then Soros is just playing within the rules of the game.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, we need to stick with reliable sources like msnbc, moveon, huffington, and dailykos.

Please prove five examples of inaccurate *edited* content from any of those sites, say, today or yesterday.

Unedited content - users posting - has a lot of inaccuracy. I don't expect 5 - post any you find.

 

[Moonbeam]

Over the years, due to the use of fear of the rest of the world, the country has moved to right. The country is also dying. This is no coincidence. We become what we fear, just as the persecuted Jew has become the jailer.

 

[Moonbeam]

Look at the ease with which self-proclaimed progressives such as Craig lose their morals when it comes to winning. The concentration of wealth is bad, until it supports Craig's agenda. Then Soros is just playing within the rules of the game.

I am sorry, but this is idiotic. The concentration of wealth is bad because the number of folk like Soros who care more about the big picture than their own personal benefit are vanishingly small. It isn't wealth that is the problem, it's that those who have it usually use it to get more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more instead of doing what will make the majority more.

Money makes assholes out of most people. The number of folk with real morality and money is rare.

When you seek too hard to be objective, Bober, you can go blind.

 

[werepossum]

whats that about Kennedys presidential win?

LOL Chicago and West Virginia for the win.

 

[Craig234]

LOL Chicago and West Virginia for the win.

For the sake of argument say you're right Give Illinois and West Virginia to Nixon. Ignore Nixon's fraud.

Kennedy stilll wins.

 

[Ldir]

Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell were models of objectivity and non-partisanship.

^^This. Republicans crying about losing the ability to corrupt elections from the inside.

 

[BoberFett]

Money makes assholes out of most people. The number of folk with real morality and money is rare.

And Soros is one of the assholes.

If you believe that Soros: the Manipulator of Currency is one of the "good guys" then you're simply beyond hope. Same goes for DMcCraigwen234

 

[cubby1223]

You don't understand what propaganda is.

Really? I always suspected "progressives" spit on the dictionary too, and this just confirms it

 

[Darwin333]

Depeneds what you mean fair.

Do you mean 'fair under the rules'? Or do you mean a broader sense of fair?

If you mean the broader sense, do you mean 'one side should follow fair, while the other does not, so that the side following fair loses more elections while the side who does not wins more'?

Do you mean the fairness of the system, of the fairness of the policies that result?

In short, the same rules for fairness of the system apply whether it's a right-wing or left-wing 'rich guy' buying the outcome.

While the rules allow it, it's fair to use them for 'your side' and not let the other side only use them for theirs.

So you, and the progressives, don't even believe your own bullshit? I am sorry Craig but you can't preach fairness and then say "one side should follow fair, while the other does not, so that the side following fair loses more elections while the side who does not wins more'?".

You don't get to throw your morals and ethics out the window because your competitor doesn't agree with them AND say that you are more ethical and moral at the same time. I understand your point but you can only be on one side or the other. You either ACT ethically or you don't, words are meaningless.

 

[Craig234]

So you, and the progressives, don't even believe your own bullshit? I am sorry Craig but you can't preach fairness and then say "one side should follow fair, while the other does not, so that the side following fair loses more elections while the side who does not wins more'?".

You don't get to throw your morals and ethics out the window because your competitor doesn't agree with them AND say that you are more ethical and moral at the same time. I understand your point but you can only be on one side or the other. You either ACT ethically or you don't, words are meaningless.

I was about to say I"m sick of people who can't be bothered to read a post and post misrepresentations, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your post is full of crap, I assume based on misunderstanding mine.

You raise all kinds of hyperbolic attack that's wrong.

This is NOT about some inherently moral issue where doing it is simply wrong. In this case, an equal playing field trumps the inherent moral issue.

Let's say one side suggests "how about a rule that you can't advertise on tv for one month before the election? We think this will cut down on the role of bad 30-second spots late in the game".

Now, if the other side says "no way", you are NOT obligated to follow that rule while the other side doesn't.

On the other hand, let's say the Supreme Court said "candidates are allowed to lie about their opponents' families", and you suggested an agreement where the candidates agree not to do this, and the other side says "no way, we're going to do it". Now, this might be an example where you say 'it's just wrong, so we don't do it even if the other side does."

This issue is a position on the proper role of corporate financing, and if the other side says "no way" and it's not a rule, you are not obligated to follow it and lose elections rather than break it.

There's nothing wrong nor hypocritical, and you are way offf base with your attacks that are obnoxious.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So does Craig think this is right or wrong? I'm not sure.

 

[Darwin333]

I am sorry, but this is idiotic. The concentration of wealth is bad because the number of folk like Soros who care more about the big picture than their own personal benefit are vanishingly small. It isn't wealth that is the problem, it's that those who have it usually use it to get more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more instead of doing what will make the majority more.

Do you know how Soros makes his money?

Money makes assholes out of most people. The number of folk with real morality and money is rare.

When you seek too hard to be objective, Bober, you can go blind.

The number of people with real morality is getting much rarer in general. The difference is no one really cares about poor bastards with no or little morality so we don't hear or talk about them.

 

[Ozoned]

Here is the claim:

Since 2006 the Democracy Alliance, a left leaning influence group funded by George Soros among others, has had remarkable success in targeting and claiming Secretary of State's offices in 11 of 13 critical states they targeted, including Ohio, Minnesota and Iowa.

Winning elections fairly (secretary of state) isn't wrong. If anything, it's a defensivbe move because the right has been known to abuse the office - criminallly IMO.

I guess Corporate advertising will balance Soros.

 

[Darwin333]

I was about to say I"m sick of people who can't be bothered to read a post and post misrepresentations, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your post is full of crap, I assume based on misunderstanding mine.

You raise all kinds of hyperbolic attack that's wrong.

This is NOT about some inherently moral issue where doing it is simply wrong. In this case, an equal playing field trumps the inherent moral issue.

Let's say one side suggests "how about a rule that you can't advertise on tv for one month before the election? We think this will cut down on the role of bad 30-second spots late in the game".

Now, if the other side says "no way", you are NOT obligated to follow that rule while the other side doesn't.

On the other hand, let's say the Supreme Court said "candidates are allowed to lie about their opponents' families", and you suggested an agreement where the candidates agree not to do this, and the other side says "no way, we're going to do it". Now, this might be an example where you say 'it's just wrong, so we don't do it even if the other side does."

This issue is a position on the proper role of corporate financing, and if the other side says "no way" and it's not a rule, you are not obligated to follow it and lose elections rather than break it.

There's nothing wrong nor hypocritical, and you are way offf base with your attacks that are obnoxious.

They are not attacks Craig and they are not obnoxious, they are simple observations. I know what my morals are and I try my hardest to live up them everyday of my life. I am in no way perfect and I have found myself in situations just as you describe, some might be proud to say that they upheld their values on all but a few occasions. OTOH, I am instead ashamed that on a few occasions I did not uphold those values. I didn't try to excuse my actions because my competition was doing it as well, what I did was wrong and its that simple. The reason I made those choices isn't that relevant to me only the fact that I did and it was wrong.

In my little book of "the world" you don't get to say that something is wrong while doing that very same thing and remain credible. If you are willing to continually break and violate your morals and ethics then I will question how highly you regarded those morals and ethics. It is one thing to say that you don't think its right but you are playing the game the way everyone else is playing. It is entirely different to continually rail against the way everyone else plays and then when its your turn to bat you play the exact same way.

I keep going back to this very simple truth, actions and not words. You can (and are) attempt to excuse your actions but you will have to forgive me for paying more attention to those actions than I do the words or the excuse. Seriously Craig, aren't you tired of this bullshit in politics "I am doing this bad thing because the other guys did it first" so the other guys use the same damned excuse and you know what we have/are/will get from that? CONTINUALLY WORSE ACTION! Your side may say they want to change that but their actions say otherwise so please explain it to me real slowly, why should I buy the same old bullshit line that all the rest try to feed me while doing the exact opposite?

 

[Craig234]

They are not attacks Craig and they are not obnoxious, they are simple observations. I know what my morals are and I try my hardest to live up them everyday of my life. I am in no way perfect and I have found myself in situations just as you describe, some might be proud to say that they upheld their values on all but a few occasions. OTOH, I am instead ashamed that on a few occasions I did not uphold those values. I didn't try to excuse my actions because my competition was doing it as well, what I did was wrong and its that simple. The reason I made those choices isn't that relevant to me only the fact that I did and it was wrong.

In my little book of "the world" you don't get to say that something is wrong while doing that very same thing and remain credible. If you are willing to continually break and violate your morals and ethics then I will question how highly you regarded those morals and ethics. It is one thing to say that you don't think its right but you are playing the game the way everyone else is playing. It is entirely different to continually rail against the way everyone else plays and then when its your turn to bat you play the exact same way.

I keep going back to this very simple truth, actions and not words. You can (and are) attempt to excuse your actions but you will have to forgive me for paying more attention to those actions than I do the words or the excuse. Seriously Craig, aren't you tired of this bullshit in politics "I am doing this bad thing because the other guys did it first" so the other guys use the same damned excuse and you know what we have/are/will get from that? CONTINUALLY WORSE ACTION! Your side may say they want to change that but their actions say otherwise so please explain it to me real slowly, why should I buy the same old bullshit line that all the rest try to feed me while doing the exact opposite?

We aren't speaking the same language. I explained the difference to you and you posted as if I hadn't said a word.

Until you get what I'm taking about when I say there are things that are inherent moral issues and things that are issues that should be equal for all the people in the race, we aren't getting anywhere.

Your comments are attacks and they are obnoxious. You are making accusations of doing wrong that are wrong. We don't seem to agree on what's wrong with the system.

I'd like to see media fixed so it's not a corporatized media propagandizing the public. I'd like to see money reduced in politics so the wealthy can't make the public irrelevant in who runs government.

Sorry, but I don't see much point in repeating the same thing over and over on this.

 

[werepossum]

They are not attacks Craig and they are not obnoxious, they are simple observations. I know what my morals are and I try my hardest to live up them everyday of my life. I am in no way perfect and I have found myself in situations just as you describe, some might be proud to say that they upheld their values on all but a few occasions. OTOH, I am instead ashamed that on a few occasions I did not uphold those values. I didn't try to excuse my actions because my competition was doing it as well, what I did was wrong and its that simple. The reason I made those choices isn't that relevant to me only the fact that I did and it was wrong.

In my little book of "the world" you don't get to say that something is wrong while doing that very same thing and remain credible. If you are willing to continually break and violate your morals and ethics then I will question how highly you regarded those morals and ethics. It is one thing to say that you don't think its right but you are playing the game the way everyone else is playing. It is entirely different to continually rail against the way everyone else plays and then when its your turn to bat you play the exact same way.

I keep going back to this very simple truth, actions and not words. You can (and are) attempt to excuse your actions but you will have to forgive me for paying more attention to those actions than I do the words or the excuse. Seriously Craig, aren't you tired of this bullshit in politics "I am doing this bad thing because the other guys did it first" so the other guys use the same damned excuse and you know what we have/are/will get from that? CONTINUALLY WORSE ACTION! Your side may say they want to change that but their actions say otherwise so please explain it to me real slowly, why should I buy the same old bullshit line that all the rest try to feed me while doing the exact opposite?

Try arguing with rocks, dude. They're nicer and way smarter.

 

[MotF Bane]

So does Craig think this is right or wrong? I'm not sure.

He's hedging his bets until his progressive overlords update his talking points.

 

[LumbergTech]

Liberals believe that people are stupid and government is enlightened. Why on Earth would they want to allow stupid people to honestly elect their leaders? Minnesota showed us the brave new liberal world, just keep running Democrat votes back through until you have all the votes you need to declare victory.

guess we better go to anarchy so that the truly smart people can fix this shit up for us

 

[werepossum]

guess we better go to anarchy so that the truly smart people can fix this shit up for us

In anarchy the truly smart people don't care enough to fix this up for you. Most people though recognize something other than anarchy or stolen elections.

 

[nick1985]

Media Matters is targetted at exposing the bad behavior of the right-wig media. That's not propaganda, if it's accurate.

Thanks for the laugh

 

[nobodyknows]

Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell were models of objectivity and non-partisanship.

Well, that's different.