Let's try some sobering thoughts, shall we?

[Paladin]

It has been reported that Obama has the lead in so many states, and the McCain campaign has been written off by many.

Perhaps prematurely. He can shift a couple of States and be in the ballpark.

Yesterday, McCain finally blasts and blames Bush for the ills of the Country, a feeling that is shared by many people, given Bush's "approval" ratings. He especially blamed Bush for Iraq, the fiscal crisis and other problems. While it may be too little too late, it could swing some votes over to McCain in several states, thus getting the win in the EC votes. The point is, so what if he did squeak out a win? In his campaign, the "Maverick" moniker has been his sobriquet. In political terms that can mean: "does not play well with others". What could he do or not do even if the Congress remained the same as it is today?

I am not looking for political baiting, here. I am as much appalled by the extreme Right as anyone here, but I also have great misgivings about the extreme Left. So, would a McCain victory be a disaster or would it make no difference at all. I would expect honesty in the responses.

[Spider]

i doubt it ..... the man is on record for saying he agreed over 90% of the time with Bush , now he is throwing Bush under the Bus ......... People will see it as that

[tnedator]

It has been reported that Obama has the lead in so many states, and the McCain campaign has been written off by many.

Perhaps prematurely. He can shift a couple of States and be in the ballpark.

Yesterday, McCain finally blasts and blames Bush for the ills of the Country, a feeling that is shared by many people, given Bush's "approval" ratings. He especially blamed Bush for Iraq, the fiscal crisis and other problems. While it may be too little too late, it could swing some votes over to McCain in several states, thus getting the win in the EC votes. The point is, so what if he did squeak out a win? In his campaign, the "Maverick" moniker has been his sobriquet. In political terms that can mean: "does not play well with others". What could he do or not do even if the Congress remained the same as it is today?

I am not looking for political baiting, here. I am as much appalled by the extreme Right as anyone here, but I also have great misgivings about the extreme Left. So, would a McCain victory be a disaster or would it make no difference at all. I would expect honesty in the responses.

I think it really comes down to whether you think the extreme liberal views will be good for this country. I don't just mean Obama's, but in congress.

There is a very real chance that if Obama is elected, there will be no checks in place. Meaning, a liberal president with a democratic congress/Senate, with the possibility of 60+ senators to prevent any veto.

So, for instance, one of the things the democratic congress has been pushing for a while is to want to change union votes to open, rather than secret ballots. The ONLY reason for this is to force unions into companies that don't want them, because up til now, workers that didn't want unions, could sign the public cards that 50% of workers must sign, thereby protecting themselves from intimidation from other workers or union leaders, but then voting against the union in the secret votes.

This is just one example of what an unchecked president/congress will push through. Is that change in terms of unions bad? That's for a different discussion, but the point is that there will be no president to veto legislation like this and there may very well be no filibuster to force bi-partisan debate and agreement on bills.

That was the flipside of your question. So, the real question is not whether electing John McCain will be a disaster, but instead the question is will there be a disaster if he isn't elected. I guess only time will tell.

[Paladin]

Spider, throwing Bush out with the bath water is what some of the moderates and others would like to hear in Florida, VA and Penn. Those poll numers are floating still. It isn't over.

[Paladin]

I think it really comes down to whether you think the extreme liberal views will be good for this country. I don't just mean Obama's, but in congress.

There is a very real chance that if Obama is elected, there will be no checks in place. Meaning, a liberal president with a democratic congress/Senate, with the possibility of 60+ senators to prevent any veto.

So, for instance, one of the things the democratic congress has been pushing for a while is to want to change union votes to open, rather than secret ballots. The ONLY reason for this is to force unions into companies that don't want them, because up til now, workers that didn't want unions, could sign the public cards that 50% of workers must sign, thereby protecting themselves from intimidation from other workers or union leaders, but then voting against the union in the secret votes.

This is just one example of what an unchecked president/congress will push through. Is that change in terms of unions bad? That's for a different discussion, but the point is that there will be no president to veto legislation like this and there may very well be no filibuster to force bi-partisan debate and agreement on bills.

That was the flipside of your question. So, the real question is not whether electing John McCain will be a disaster, but instead the question is will there be a disaster if he isn't elected. I guess only time will tell.



So, you don't think McCain could forge a partnership with the Congress (bipartinship) to govern? That would be sad, regardless of the specific legislation du jure you happen to attend to.

[Paladin]

Frankly, I think the Country still moves towards more socialistic concepts. There would still be an expansion of economic intervention whether it be McCain or Obama, and tax increases will happen either way. McCain would be less open about it.....

[SJ Bronco]

"The will of the people" will describe this election in history, but I think a better title would be "fool me twice shame on me" or "a country scorned.

[Paladin]

It had been demonstrated somewhere that most Americans are a bit right of center philosophically. If McCain successfully taps into that sentiment, he can win. And the first step is to dump Bush. It may be, as Spider says, too lat, but that is the paradigm for the next election if not the rest of McCain's campaign. He also throws Palin under the bus with this change in strategy because it directly challenges the right wing nutjobs.....

It can win, guys.....

[Crushaholic]

I don't trust McCain at all. He flip-flops on so many issues that I don't know how he'll govern. However, an unchecked government would be very bad..which is what we'll presumably get with an Obama presidency. It's not likely that the Congress will shift Republican. Therefore, McCain is simply the lesser of two evils...

[tnedator]

So, you don't think McCain could forge a partnership with the Congress (bipartinship) to govern? That would be sad, regardless of the specific legislation du jure you happen to attend to.

No, that's not what I was saying. Yes, I do think McCain would forge a 'partnership'. In that scenario, McCain and congress would have to work together, because he would have veto power over their bills. Therefore, the extreme liberal agendas that have been held in check for many years, would still not get out of congress, or would be vetoed.

Instead, their would be compromise bills, which is normally how it works (forced either by the thread of veto or filibuster).

However, if Obama gets elected along with 60 democratic senators, there would no longer be either the thread of veto or filibuster, meaning for all intents and purposes, the Republicans in congress would be lame ducks and many far left liberal agenda items would be pushed through, assuming all democratic senators fell in line.

[SJ Bronco]

I've said from the beginning, I don't trust the poles. I think McCain is in this sucker until the final whistle.

[barryr]

Socialized medicine is headed our way I believe, whomever gets elected since so many can't see how it has failed in Canada and insist it'll be different here.

Having a president and a Congress in the same party with ties to extreme leftist groups who want to see the U.S. weakened is very scary to say the least.

[tnedator]

I don't trust McCain at all. He flip-flops on so many issues that I don't know how he'll govern. However, an unchecked government would be very bad..which is what we'll presumably get with an Obama presidency. It's not likely that the Congress will shift Republican. Therefore, McCain is simply the lesser of two evils...

I don't like McCain as the GOP candidate, and think Obama would actually be a better president in terms of foreign relations. However, there is no doubt that I lean right in terms of fiscal issues like taxation and social programs/entitlements (i'm indifferent on most social issues, with the exception of gun control), but the thought of the unchecked liberal government, is frightening.

A perfect example, even though the Republicans controlled congress, they couldn't get Fannie/Freddie reform/restrictions pushed through comittee, because the dems fought it and were going to filibuster any vote.

Even if sometimes the results are bad, overall I think one party having some type of veto (whether real veto or filibuster) control, to force bi-partisan compromises, is far less scary a thought.

From a liberal point of view, I think one of the most frightening aspects should be the replacement of supreme court justices. There could very well be two or three justices replaced in this term, and few liberals would want McCain appointing them. However, again with the checks and balances, he would be unlikely to be able to push through highly conservative judges, because anyway you look at it, there will be a democratic majority in the senate, the only question is whether it will be 60.

[Paladin]

I am surprised that so many here believe the Democrats are such a homogeneous group. The range of opinions in the Democratic party is as broad as it is in the Republican party, just not as obvious, I think....

I also heard about a study in which it was noted that some of the greatest advances in the US history occurred during "mixed" administrations and Congresses.

Barry, it is also true that the president wouldn't be able to screw the people quite like Bush did, either. your argument has two sides to it. Can you appreciate them? In other words, McCain would not be a great savior of the American Way by outlawing "liberals", if you catch my drift.......

[tnedator]

Socialized medicine is headed our way I believe, whomever gets elected since so many can't see how it has failed in Canada and insist it'll be different here.

Having a president and a Congress in the same party with ties to extreme leftist groups who want to see the U.S. weakened is very scary to say the least.

It's so funny. I spend a fair amount of time in Europe with work, and watching many of the countries there changing from nationalized health care to fee for service and private insurance, while we are pushing to go in the other direction.

[TailgateNut]

Having a president and a Congress in the same party with ties to extreme leftist groups who want to see the U.S. weakened is very scary to say the least.


BOO!

[TailgateNut]

No, that's not what I was saying. Yes, I do think McCain would forge a 'partnership'. In that scenario, McCain and congress would have to work together, because he would have veto power over their bills. Therefore, the extreme liberal agendas that have been held in check for many years, would still not get out of congress, or would be vetoed.

.

In other words we'd have the last two years of Bush. Nothing accomplished, and McStain would be called McVeto!

[SJ Bronco]

I am surprised that so many here believe the Deomcrats are such a homogenous froup. The range of opinions in teh Democratic party is as broad as it is in the Republican party, just not as obvious, I think....

I also heard about a study in which it was noted that soome of teh greates advances in teh US history occurred during "mixed" administrations and Congresses.

Barry, it is also true that the president wouldn't be able to screw the people quite like Bush did, either. your argument has two sides to it. Can you appreciate them? In other words, McCain would not be a great savior of the American Way by outlawing "liberals", if you catch my drift.......

Rep...good point...I'm a centered liberal. I hate San francisco for example. They have gone so far left that its almost a nazi society, if you eat meat and use plastic bags they threaten harm on you, and in some cases, (because there are laws against some normal things of choice in SF) they fine or imprison you! Trust me, not all of the left are dirty hippies dude.:peace:

[tnedator]

Rep...good point...I'm a centered liberal. I hate San francisco for example. They have gone so far left that its almost a nazi society, if you eat meat and use plastic bags they threaten harm on you, and in some cases, (because there are laws against some normal things of choice in SF) they fine or imprison you! Trust me, not all of the left are dirty hippies dude.:peace:

And conversly, most of the right is not right-wing, nut jobs. I am a fairly centrest conservative. I typically by into the GOP's ideas in terms of taxes and 'most' fiscal issues, but start diverge on many social issues.

While years ago I used to listen to Rush (back in the America held hostage days), I haven't in probably 10 years, because I can't stand the far right zealots, any more than the far left. He, Michael Reagan, Coulter and the lot aren't objective when it comes to finding fault with the mistakes made on both sides of the aisle.

[SJ Bronco]

And conversly, most of the right is not right-wing, nut jobs. I am a fairly centrest conservative. I typically by into the GOP's ideas in terms of taxes and 'most' fiscal issues, but start diverge on many social issues.

While years ago I used to listen to Rush (back in the America held hostage days), I haven't in probably 10 years, because I can't stand the far right zealots, any more than the far left. He, Michael Reagan, Coulter and the lot aren't objective when it comes to finding fault with the mistakes made on both sides of the aisle.

Randy rhodes...... I hear you

[Bronco Bob]

I think it really comes down to whether you think the extreme liberal views will be good for this country. I don't just mean Obama's, but in congress.


Well, it's pretty obvious after 8 years that extreme conservative views are
bad for the country.



There is a very real chance that if Obama is elected, there will be no checks in place. Meaning, a liberal president with a democratic congress/Senate, with the possibility of 60+ senators to prevent any veto.

So, for instance, one of the things the democratic congress has been pushing for a while is to want to change union votes to open, rather than secret ballots. The ONLY reason for this is to force unions into companies that don't want them, because up til now, workers that didn't want unions, could sign the public cards that 50% of workers must sign, thereby protecting themselves from intimidation from other workers or union leaders, but then voting against the union in the secret votes.

This is just one example of what an unchecked president/congress will push through. Is that change in terms of unions bad? That's for a different discussion, but the point is that there will be no president to veto legislation like this and there may very well be no filibuster to force bi-partisan debate and agreement on bills.

That was the flipside of your question. So, the real question is not whether electing John McCain will be a disaster, but instead the question is will there be a disaster if he isn't elected. I guess only time will tell.



I'm not sure how union voting procedures can be construed as extreme
liberalism. Just who tallies up these secret ballots anyway?
And who insures someone isn't stuffing the ballot box. With an
open vote you know who is voting, nothing sneaky going on.
The thing I am more concerned about is the union busting and
good paying manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas that
has been going on and encouraged by extreme conservatism.
If extreme liberalism reverses this trend, I'm all for it.

[tnedator]

Well, it's pretty obvious after 8 years that extreme conservative views are
bad for the country.

That hasn't existed over the last 8 years. There has not been a conservative, president, Congress AND 60+ senators in congress to block filibusters. The dems even took the unprecedented step of filibustering federal judges. Not supreme court justices, but federal judges.

The dems also used the filibuster threat to block things like putting lending restrictions on Fannie and Freddie.

It's great to spin the situation as complete GOP control over the last 8 years, but we both know that isn't true.

I'm not sure how union voting procedures can be construed as extreme
liberalism. Just who tallies up these secret ballots anyway?
And who insures someone isn't stuffing the ballot box. With an
open vote you know who is voting, nothing sneaky going on.
The thing I am more concerned about is the union busting and
good paying manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas that
has been going on and encouraged by extreme conservatism.
If extreme liberalism reverses this trend, I'm all for it.

So, you have no problem with employees being forced to vote yes for unions, even when they don't want it? No problem with their families being threatened? Being told they won't have jobs, etc. You have no problem with union 'organizers' using intimidation tactics to force unions, even when 50% of the employees don't want a union?

That's the WHOLE reason behind open balloting and the reason they now have secret ballots.

So, yes, it is an extreme liberal view. One that says that the governement and 'organizers' know what is best for the employees of a company, rather than the employees themselves. That is at the very heart of far-left liberalism.

[tnedator]

The thing I am more concerned about is the union busting and
good paying manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas that
has been going on and encouraged by extreme conservatism.
If extreme liberalism reverses this trend, I'm all for it.

By the way, forcing employees to join unions they don't want, and therefore raising the cost to companies will not prevent jobs from being shipped overseas, but increase it. Just like the auto industry was destroyed in this country.

Some foreign and domestic companies have brought jobs BACK to the US, mostly in the south, in non pro-union areas. Intimidating and coercing employees into unions will just result in those jobs being shipped back overseas or into Mexico again.

Increase taxes on corporations and force employees into unions. Yep, sounds like a sure plan for job creation.

[frerottenextelway]

**** that. The 'fringe left' is mainstream america. Iraq, abortion, stem cell research, diplomacy, global warming - nearly every issue (sans gay marriage) the american people back the policy of the left.

The whackjobs always say it's a ''center-right'' country. It's not. If it was, they would run on issues. They don't. The left does. Because it's a center-left country.

[tnedator]

**** that. The 'fringe left' is mainstream america. Iraq, abortion, stem cell research, diplomacy, global warming - nearly every issue (sans gay marriage) the american people back the policy of the left.

The whackjobs always say it's a ''center-right'' country. It's not. If it was, they would run on issues. They don't. The left does. Because it's a center-left country.

Maybe if you guys didn't focus so much on the 'left' or 'right' you would realize that 'center' is the key word.

Even in the center, some are for abortion, some against, many 'mixed', in terms of cell stell research, in the center many like the idea, but might be 'mixed' in terms of where the stem cells come from, as to global warming, many in the center are 'mixed' they aren't sure if it really is man made and don't buy the 'debate is over', but take an approach that the safe thing to do is not polute our planet and do things that will help prevent global warming 'just in case' it turns out to be mane made.

Contrary to what you think, 'mainstream' american doesn't fall in line with every liberal view except gay marriage.

[peacepipe]

I think it really comes down to whether you think the extreme liberal views will be good for this country. I don't just mean Obama's, but in congress.

There is a very real chance that if Obama is elected, there will be no checks in place. Meaning, a liberal president with a democratic congress/Senate, with the possibility of 60+ senators to prevent any veto.

So, for instance, one of the things the democratic congress has been pushing for a while is to want to change union votes to open, rather than secret ballots. The ONLY reason for this is to force unions into companies that don't want them, because up til now, workers that didn't want unions, could sign the public cards that 50% of workers must sign, thereby protecting themselves from intimidation from other workers or union leaders, but then voting against the union in the secret votes.
This is just one example of what an unchecked president/congress will push through. Is that change in terms of unions bad? That's for a different discussion, but the point is that there will be no president to veto legislation like this and there may very well be no filibuster to force bi-partisan debate and agreement on bills.

That was the flipside of your question. So, the real question is not whether electing John McCain will be a disaster, but instead the question is will there be a disaster if he isn't elected. I guess only time will tell.
The real intimidation comes from the owners,I say this with actual experience in trying to unionize a fabricating shop I worked at.
1. the employees working there are the ones that push for union,their isn't some group of people that walk the streets looking to force any one shop that they walk up on to go union.
2. no company likes unions.
3.The whole thing starts by a few employees,for example when our shop tried to go union we talked to other employees & in a matter of about a couple weeks by no threats or strong arming 68% of the shop employees were in agreement to go union.
Once that is done the petition is turned over to the DOL which then let's the Co. know we have formally moved to go union. Now a date is set up to vote,which is generally set a month later. We made our move to go union formally 4/17 & the vote was set for 5/24. during that month they pulled people individually & in small groups telling them that if we go union they will shut down,started to imply that bad things can happen,when that didn't work they started firing people to make sure we lost. These are the reasons why "the employees free choice act"needs to be put in law. Unfortunately there tactics worked,before you say they couldn't afford to go union etc.,etc,. no more than 4 months later they were bragging in a article written in the local paper that they were the verge of becomming a fortune 500 company.
In general, any place that goes union is going to have a few that don't want to go union,but we live in a democracy which means majority rules. BTW if someone doesn't like the fact that a company or place of employment goes union they can take comfort in the knowledge that this is a free country & quit.

[Spider]

Maybe if you guys didn't focus so much on the 'left' or 'right' you would realize that 'center' is the key word.

Even in the center, some are for abortion, some against, many 'mixed', in terms of cell stell research, in the center many like the idea, but might be 'mixed' in terms of where the stem cells come from, as to global warming, many in the center are 'mixed' they aren't sure if it really is man made and don't buy the 'debate is over', but take an approach that the safe thing to do is not polute our planet and do things that will help prevent global warming 'just in case' it turns out to be mane made.

Contrary to what you think, 'mainstream' american doesn't fall in line with every liberal view except gay marriage.

Wrong .......... i meet alot of people in my line of work , blue collar dock workers , other drivers , locals in restaurants , etc ........ I doubt they know it , but outside of abortion these people are liberal .........you really talk to the waitress , she will complain about healthcare right now , the cost of food , heating her home , the Mechanic , He will biatch about things also , healthcare , food , shelter , heating issues , He will talk about hos his health care at work doesnt cover the cost of his kids braces , or how much it cost to feed his kid at school cause on paper he makes too much , but in realty he makes less , you talk to the highway Patrolman , he will tell you the dept has cut back his patrolling cause the cost of gas , and how he is worried about retirement ,or the farmer .. dont bring up the issues of politics , just say man these prices are killing me , and let them cut loose , you will find people everywhere are liberal , but because of the republican packaging aka the Christian coalition , they think they are conservatives ....it is people like you that are whacked , you keep voting against your own self interest......

[frerottenextelway]

Maybe if you guys didn't focus so much on the 'left' or 'right' you would realize that 'center' is the key word.

Even in the center, some are for abortion, some against, many 'mixed', in terms of cell stell research, in the center many like the idea, but might be 'mixed' in terms of where the stem cells come from, as to global warming, many in the center are 'mixed' they aren't sure if it really is man made and don't buy the 'debate is over', but take an approach that the safe thing to do is not polute our planet and do things that will help prevent global warming 'just in case' it turns out to be mane made.

Contrary to what you think, 'mainstream' american doesn't fall in line with every liberal view except gay marriage.

Fact - the American people support in significant numbers the "liberal side" of all the issues I listed. That's my point - what people like you call the ''far left'' tends to coincide with the viewpoints of the average American.

[tnedator]

Wrong .......... i meet alot of people in my line of work , blue collar dock workers , other drivers , locals in restaurants , etc ........ I doubt they know it , but outside of abortion these people are liberal .........you really talk to the waitress , she will complain about healthcare right now , the cost of food , heating her home , the Mechanic , He will biatch about things also , healthcare , food , shelter , heating issues , He will talk about hos his health care at work doesnt cover the cost of his kids braces , or how much it cost to feed his kid at school cause on paper he makes too much , but in realty he makes less , you talk to the highway Patrolman , he will tell you the dept has cut back his patrolling cause the cost of gas , and how he is worried about retirement ,or the farmer .. dont bring up the issues of politics , just say man these prices are killing me , and let them cut loose , you will find people everywhere are liberal , but because of the republican packaging aka the Christian coalition , they think they are conservatives ....it is people like you that are whacked , you keep voting against your own self interest......

You didn't describe a SINGLE liberal issue, you described problems facing most Americans. They are not liberal or conservative issues, they are problems.

[Spider]

You didn't describe a SINGLE liberal issue, you described problems facing most Americans. They are not liberal or conservative issues, they are problems.

How they get solved is a liberal issue , we tried the republican way , but I am sure when Push comes to shove , alot of these people will vote Obama , they just wont admit it ........even though I am seeing more and more Obama stickers .........

[frerottenextelway]

even though I am seeing more and more Obama stickers .........

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Obama-Purchases-R.jpg

[tnedator]

How they get solved is a liberal issue , we tried the republican way , but I am sure when Push comes to shove , alot of these people will vote Obama , they just wont admit it ........even though I am seeing more and more Obama stickers .........

I don't disagree that a lot of people will look towards Obama and the democrats for a 'different' approach to solve the problems, but that doesn't make them liberal issues, they are American problems and issues.

Health care for instance. Remember how the Democrats were going to solve that in '92? Was that a liberal issue?

Clinton promised to fix health care. Bush promised to fix health care. Obama and McCain are promising to fix it. Whoever runs in 4 years will be promising to fix health care.

You mentioned things like the cost of food. That is a liberal issue, in the sense that food costs are higher now at least partially due to the fact that corn and soybean prices are through the roof, because congress created subsidies for bio-diesel and ethanol, which artificially raised the price of corn and soybeans, which creates a whole domino effect of price increases from corn, to beef to eggs.

I know it is vogue to simplify all these issues down to bush ****ed everything up and the liberals will fix it, but you are smarter than that, I am smarter than that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yesterday, McCain finally blasts and blames Bush for the ills of the Country, a feeling that is shared by many people, given Bush's "approval" ratings.

Hilarious!

Amazing that he seems to believe Americans are unaware of the fact that he voted with Bush 90% of the time.

McCheese is simply not a good enough liar or bullsh*t artist to be a successful republican candidate.

[Miss I.]

I don't disagree that a lot of people will look towards Obama and the democrats for a 'different' approach to solve the problems, but that doesn't make them liberal issues, they are American problems and issues.

Health care for instance. Remember how the Democrats were going to solve that in '92? Was that a liberal issue?

Clinton promised to fix health care. Bush promised to fix health care. Obama and McCain are promising to fix it. Whoever runs in 4 years will be promising to fix health care.

You mentioned things like the cost of food. That is a liberal issue, in the sense that food costs are higher now at least partially due to the fact that corn and soybean prices are through the roof, because congress created subsidies for bio-diesel and ethanol, which artificially raised the price of corn and soybeans, which creates a whole domino effect of price increases from corn, to beef to eggs.

I know it is vogue to simplify all these issues down to bush ****ed everything up and the liberals will fix it, but you are smarter than that, I am smarter than that.

I agree with this. I think the problems mentioned are American problems, not liberal or conservative. The difference is not that liberals or conservatives or democrats or republicans don't see the same issues (most of the time at any rate), but rather how each of these sides approaches issues. The solutions are generally approached differently. That's just my opinion though, and we all know what they say about opinions.

[Paladin]

I do believe that neither party has anything like a monopoly on the ideas for addressing these problems. The point is that it will take a bipartisan, open mind to address them. I do think that the typical Republican answer to cut taxes and to help Corporations and business solve the problems is seiously lacking in credibility. The "investor" mentality assumes there is an altruistic motive to business functions, when that has not been shown to be the case. I give you the current fiasco as proof.

The Democrats have to learn that there are some business principles of cost-benefit ratios that have validity. Actuaries don't lie. Therefor, some methods of "helping" programs don't work, either. I argue there is a middle ground between these positions.

But I am afraid that extremists in either party could be very destructive and be obstructive without regard to the needs of the population. I do not argue for socialism, but I do argue against the "Corporations and businesses are God" crap, also.

Spider has outlined some issues. The conservatives have defined them as "problems". They are issues that threaten the health and well-being of the Country, which are among the reasons this Country was founded. (See Thomas Jefferson, Constitution, Preamble, 1776).

So, tell me. How would you address those issues and problems from your political perspective? Honest answers, please, and no sniping......

[W*GS]

How would you address those issues and problems from your political perspective? Honest answers, please, and no sniping......

Cut the government in half. To start.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think it really comes down to whether you think the extreme liberal views will be good for this country.

How does it make you feel that such a huge majority of your fellow Americans are "extreme liberals?" Hilarious!

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/5111/mapob5.jpg

[JCMElway]

My only fear is the Supreme Court nominees that McCain would offer up. The court is going to lose 2-3 left-leaning judges in the next four years. If they were replaced with conservatives, the current balance of the Supreme Court (4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Kennedy in the middle) would be shattered and we would have a Conservative court for decades.

That is NOT the kind of change we need.

[BroncoBuff]

I've said from the beginning, I don't trust the poles.
I don't trust the Poles either ... that sausage is a bit TOO tasty, you gotta wonder what's in it. Like Chris Rock said about Krispy Kream donuts, "They're just too good. In fact, if someday they find out there's crack in Krispy Kreams, you'd say I knew somethin was up."

I feel the same way about the Poles and their sausage. Somethin's up there we don't know.

[Paladin]

Cut the government in half. To start.

To what end? How does that ensure the safety of the population against bad lettuce or attacks from the Marshall Islands Coalition of the Willing?

You are sniping. That is not helpful to what we are discussing here.

[Paladin]

How does it make you feel that such a huge majority of your fellow Americans are "extreme liberals?" Hilarious!

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/5111/mapob5.jpg

They are not extreme liberals. They are people looking for honest answers in tough times.....

[W*GS]

To what end? How does that ensure the safety of the population against bad lettuce or attacks from the Marshall Islands Coalition of the Willing?

You believe that if the government spends only $1,000,000,000,000 of our tax dollars, we'll have anarchy?

[Paladin]

You believe that if the government spends only $1,000,000,000,000 of our tax dollars, we'll have anarchy?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You wish to talk in riddles, start your own thread. I am trying to get some answers to, and serious thoughts about, some of these very real and difficult issues and problems. While I understand your need to snipe, that indicates to me that you have nothing to contribute in a meaningful way. Otherwise, please try and fit into the type of discussion I am trying to foster here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They are not extreme liberals. They are people looking for honest answers in tough times.....

But according to our resident RNC spambot, these people all support Obama's "extreme liberal" philosophy. ;)

[Paladin]

I think it would be productive to ask what exactly is an "extreme Liberal Philosophy". Actually, there may be some parts of it I might agree with. But the use of those sorts of descriptive buzz words only shows a lack of understanding of what they are talking about.

I do not think for a moment that the RNC Spambots believe everything they spout. The buzzwords only follow certain procedures from Marketing Theory. If they spiel out the extreme, some will believe, some will not, but it takes only a few votes to change a trend. They only have to get 50.1% of the people to believe.

What the Spambots cannot stand is a rational discussion of the vapid and ignominious assertions from either camp. I have yet to hear for Bob and his "drivel: comment, and W*GS has not give a rational thought yet to my request for real, actual discussable (if that's a word) statements derived form his particular political philosophy.

Most of the buzzword purveyors cannot see the fun in that....

What's funny is that I am genuenly interested in a rational discussion here of how can we as Americans address the many issues we have in this country, leaving out the sniping and buzzwords.

[tnedator]

I think it would be productive to ask what exactly is an "extreme Liberal Philosophy". Actually, there may be some parts of it I might agree with. But the use of those sorts of descriptive buzz words only shows a lack of understanding of what they are talking about.

I do not think for a moment that the RNC Spambots believe everything they spout. The buzzwords only follow certain procedures from Marketing Theory. If they spiel out the extreme, some will believe, some will not, but it takes only a few votes to change a trend. They only have to get 50.1% of the people to believe.

What the Spambots cannot stand is a rational discussion of the vapid and ignominious assertions from either camp. I have yet to hear for Bob and his "drivel: comment, and W*GS has not give a rational thought yet to my request for real, actual discussable (if that's a word) statements derived form his particular political philosophy.

Most of the buzzword purveyors cannot see the fun in that....

What's funny is that I am genuenly interested in a rational discussion here of how can we as Americans address the many issues we have in this country, leaving out the sniping and buzzwords.

Having just been accused of being an RNC spambot (which is utter BS), I wonder if I am even 'welcome' to discuss things, but WTF.

As to extreme liberal views, I can give you some, off the top of my head, that I think many Americans, especially centrist or right leaning, consider extreme liberal views:


Socialized health care
Expansion of welfare
Wealth re-distribution
Gun Control
Refusal to use domestic energy options -- using the 'environment' as an excuse
Wanting legislature to force companies to unionize, rather than continuing to leave it up to the employees of said company
In general, like with the uninion issue, taking a stance that the government knows more about what an individual or employee needs, than that very individual or employee
Along the lines of redistribution of wealth -- a belief that the 'rich' and companies should be taxed more, and that money given out as welfare, or social programs or 'checks' to people that don't work -- without considering the consequences that will have on capital investment or reduction in the labor pool


I'm sure there are many more, but those are a handful of the top of my head.

[Bronco Bob]

Having just been accused of being an RNC spambot (which is utter BS), I wonder if I am even 'welcome' to discuss things, but WTF.

As to extreme liberal views, I can give you some, off the top of my head, that I think many Americans, especially centrist or right leaning, consider extreme liberal views:


Socialized health care
Expansion of welfare
Wealth re-distribution
Gun Control
Refusal to use domestic energy options -- using the 'environment' as an excuse
Wanting legislature to force companies to unionize, rather than continuing to leave it up to the employees of said company
In general, like with the uninion issue, taking a stance that the government knows more about what an individual or employee needs, than that very individual or employee
Along the lines of redistribution of wealth -- a belief that the 'rich' and companies should be taxed more, and that money given out as welfare, or social programs or 'checks' to people that don't work -- without considering the consequences that will have on capital investment or reduction in the labor pool


I'm sure there are many more, but those are a handful of the top of my head.

Do then the claim that Obama is for extreme socialism is a lie, because
Obama is not calling for socialized health care, is not going to reverse
the welfare reform that was passed in the Clinton administration,
isn't going to redistibute the wealth, (the tax rates will be the same
as they were under Reagan), has no new gun control proposals,
is strongly dedicated to alternative energy. So the only thing you
have is you are anti-union.

[tnedator]

Do then the claim that Obama is for extreme socialism is a lie, because
Obama is not calling for socialized health care, is not going to reverse
the welfare reform that was passed in the Clinton administration,
isn't going to redistibute the wealth, (the tax rates will be the same
as they were under Reagan), has no new gun control proposals,
is strongly dedicated to alternative energy. So the only thing you
have is you are anti-union.

First of all, I didn't discuss Obama, the question what what is extreme liberalism, and I listed some items off the top of my head.

Second, I am not anti-union, I am anti the government taking the choice away from the workers, which is what the current Dem congress and Obama wants to do.

Third, even Obama said he wants to spread the wealth around -- he and Biden have said it is patriotic to take "the rich" and give that money to the poor -- that is wealth redistribution.

Fourth, we live in a different world than we did under Reagan, the rates of that era might not be good for this era. You can't justify raising capital gains and taxes, because "that's how it was under Reagan". That was 20+ years ago, the world is much different.

Fifth, as to socializing health care (or possibly more accurately, nationalizing), that is an extreme liberal view. What Obama presents as his health care plane is a non-starter, it will never work. So, he either becomes the fourth president that campaigned on health care, only to do nothing, or he moves us towards socialized medicine. Simply mandating no pre-existing conditions, and that every citizen must be ensured, is by it's nature a socialistic concept. It requires the government, through increased taxation, paying for the health insurance/health care of those that haven't been insured. It is morally applaudable, but to not call it a socialistic approach would be insincere.

[Bronco Bob]

at the current Dem congress and Obama wants to do.

Third, even Obama said he wants to spread the wealth around -- he and Biden have said it is patriotic to take "the rich" and give that money to the poor -- that is wealth redistribution.

Fourth, we live in a different world than we did under Reagan, the rates of that era might not be good for this era. You can't justify raising capital gains and taxes, because "that's how it was under Reagan". That was 20+ years ago, the world is much different.


It wasn't 20 years ago that the tax rates were the same as under Reagan.
It was only 8 years ago. The tax rates for the upper 5% were lowered
under Reagan and stayed at the same rate under George H W Bush
and Bill Clinton. It was George W Bush who lowered the rates on
the upper 5% even more and that has proved to be disastrous for
the economy, the deficit, and the country in general. All Obama
wants to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire so the upper 5% are
paying the same rate as they were under Reagan, HW Bush,
and Clinton. And you might not be aware of this, but the economy
was doing pretty good under Clinton, as well as the country
in general.

[orinjkrush]

Republikreep.....central planning by the elites

Demoncrap.....central planning by the other elites

it really is time for more major parties

[Miss I.]

I do believe that neither party has anything like a monopoly on the ideas for addressing these problems. The point is that it will take a bipartisan, open mind to address them. I do think that the typical Republican answer to cut taxes and to help Corporations and business solve the problems is seiously lacking in credibility. The "investor" mentality assumes there is an altruistic motive to business functions, when that has not been shown to be the case. I give you the current fiasco as proof.

The Democrats have to learn that there are some business principles of cost-benefit ratios that have validity. Actuaries don't lie. Therefor, some methods of "helping" programs don't work, either. I argue there is a middle ground between these positions.

But I am afraid that extremists in either party could be very destructive and be obstructive without regard to the needs of the population. I do not argue for socialism, but I do argue against the "Corporations and businesses are God" crap, also.

Spider has outlined some issues. The conservatives have defined them as "problems". They are issues that threaten the health and well-being of the Country, which are among the reasons this Country was founded. (See Thomas Jefferson, Constitution, Preamble, 1776).

So, tell me. How would you address those issues and problems from your political perspective? Honest answers, please, and no sniping......

Interesting post. I think this could be an interesting discussion. Issues/problems, that's just semantics, what it's called. But again I think the liberal v conservative difference really lies in the approach and I agree with you when you say it will take bipartisan cooperation to get anything of consequence accomplished.

I do see the need to create new jobs and bring back some manufacturing to our country. One issue from my perspective is that our manufacturing base has been seriously weakened by a number of policies (deregulation in particular) and the resulting outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing to other countries. Our policies dictate stricter regulations on environment, labor etc making it difficult to manufacture in the United States and compete with companies that do not have to abide by these same regulations. A vaguely even playing field, by requiring export products to be built in facilities with similar regulations of American built products might make it better for our local industries as well as perhaps keep from so much of our work to be outsourced to other countries. The reason the US was so strong for so long was it was pretty independent for a long time, now we are becoming too dependent on exports. I, by no means, am sure this is correct. It's just something I have seen working on contracts.

We do need to create new industries too. Providing incentives for auto makers and others to move towards other options, like electric cars, or giving them contracts to build and maintain effective public transport so that as they give up the regular cars they have other options to make money. One large obstacle of course is the oil industries interests. Again, if we can get them invested in alternative uses for their product then we might see real change. And it isn't as if there arent' plenty of other uses for petroleum aside from gasoline. As for the domestic drilling stuff, I don't object to domestic drilling,but I do object to drilling in new areas when they have a ton of areas already available for that, but they aren't utilizing it. And the oil speculation is something that needs to be addressed (dont' know the best way to deal with it, but I am sure someone smarter then me can work that).

Again, one person's take and I am certain there are angles on these issues I am unaware of, therefore I might be suggesting something too simplistic.

[Bronco Bob]

Republikreep.....central planning by the elites

Demoncrap.....central planning by the other elites

it really is time for more major parties

What exactly is magical about a third party?
Why would you think a third party would be
any different than the current two parties?
We already have other parties, the Greens,
the Libertarians, the Independents. Why
aren't they major parties? Maybe it's because
they aren't for what most the voters are
for.

[Miss I.]

What exactly is magical about a third party?
Why would you think a third party would be
any different than the current two parties?
We already have other parties, the Greens,
the Libertarians, the Independents. Why
aren't they major parties? Maybe it's because
they aren't for what most the voters are
for.

Take this for what it's worth, another opinion, but I suspect the desire for a 3rd party stems out of the desire to get a better option (then the major parties often put up) and also a way to stimulate getting better options out of the major parties. That is, when Ross Perot for instance (and in no way take this as I supported that particular guy) actually made enough of a splash in his campaign, it forced the other candidates to perform better to some degree. Essentially having 3 parties is like having 3 major TV networks, but with the advent of competing networks and cable they have had to step up their game. If there are more ideas and candidates the hope is they can improve the overall performance. The reason they haven't made a major impact really is about the money (while on TV, it relates to effective programing and sponsorship). They don't have the money, the support to make substanial plays for major offices so they really only survive at lower levels.

[enjolras]

I don't think the argument that we will have an all democrat congress holds much sway in this election. People WANT a Democrat government by and large. During the entirety of the election cycle people have consistently supported Democrat policy by pretty large numbers. This election always came down to whether or not Obama could make it about issues, because on issues he wins (by a lot).

The economy did that.

However, in 2 years I would be concerned, if I was a democrat, about them holding on to congress. Historically we've liked mixed governments. What happened to Clinton in '94 may very well happen to Obama. Particularly if things improve a little bit. We are a slightly right of center nation on social issues, slightly left of center on economic ones. I think the government will come to reflect that.

It's rather hard to fathom McCain winning this election. Closing a double digit deficit in Pennsylvania is going to be nearly impossible. That he's having to spend time defending Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina makes it all the more difficult.

[Rohirrim]

If Obama turns the reins of power over to Pelosi and Reid, in two years the government will be turned out and he'll be dealing with rabid dog Boehner. Americans are sick of ideology. They just want competence. And they'll keep swinging the government back and forth until they get it.

[Paladin]

Interesting post. I think this could be an interesting discussion. Issues/problems, that's just semantics, what it's called. But again I think the liberal v conservative difference really lies in the approach and I agree with you when you say it will take bipartisan cooperation to get anything of consequence accomplished.

I do see the need to create new jobs and bring back some manufacturing to our country. One issue from my perspective is that our manufacturing base has been seriously weakened by a number of policies (deregulation in particular) and the resulting outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing to other countries. Our policies dictate stricter regulations on environment, labor etc making it difficult to manufacture in the United States and compete with companies that do not have to abide by these same regulations. A vaguely even playing field, by requiring export products to be built in facilities with similar regulations of American built products might make it better for our local industries as well as perhaps keep from so much of our work to be outsourced to other countries. The reason the US was so strong for so long was it was pretty independent for a long time, now we are becoming too dependent on exports. I, by no means, am sure this is correct. It's just something I have seen working on contracts.

We do need to create new industries too. Providing incentives for auto makers and others to move towards other options, like electric cars, or giving them contracts to build and maintain effective public transport so that as they give up the regular cars they have other options to make money. One large obstacle of course is the oil industries interests. Again, if we can get them invested in alternative uses for their product then we might see real change. And it isn't as if there arent' plenty of other uses for petroleum aside from gasoline. As for the domestic drilling stuff, I don't object to domestic drilling,but I do object to drilling in new areas when they have a ton of areas already available for that, but they aren't utilizing it. And the oil speculation is something that needs to be addressed (dont' know the best way to deal with it, but I am sure someone smarter then me can work that).

Again, one person's take and I am certain there are angles on these issues I am unaware of, therefore I might be suggesting something too simplistic.


Great post. Rep.

Isn't better to be more constructive in looking at the issues? Frankly I agree with your general observations. Why is it so difficult to do those things in our country? Again, excellent post. Thanks.


Tnedator tried to answer honestly my question for the definition of "Liberal". I appreciate that. If you take the extreme, "do or die" positon on all those those issues, then you'd have a "liberal" in my mind. Problem is, those positions are not lineal. Suppose one is a strong believer in "health care for all" but is lukewarm on the other issues you listed. I know of no conservative who believes that anyone should be denied health care if he/she/it needs it. So, the issue is paying for it. But suppose that is the only issue I feel strongly about. Does that make me a "liberal?" Same question for the conservative position, If I believe in a strong defense but also health care for all, what am I?

My point is that labels are, in fact, meaningless. What say you?

[Paladin]

Take this for what it's worth, another opinion, but I suspect the desire for a 3rd party stems out of the desire to get a better option (then the major parties often put up) and also a way to stimulate getting better options out of the major parties. That is, when Ross Perot for instance (and in no way take this as I supported that particular guy) actually made enough of a splash in his campaign, it forced the other candidates to perform better to some degree. Essentially having 3 parties is like having 3 major TV networks, but with the advent of competing networks and cable they have had to step up their game. If there are more ideas and candidates the hope is they can improve the overall performance. The reason they haven't made a major impact really is about the money (while on TV, it relates to effective programing and sponsorship). They don't have the money, the support to make substanial plays for major offices so they really only survive at lower levels.

REP. Good points.

[Miss I.]

Great post. Rep.

Isn't better to be more constructive in looking at the issues? Frankly I agree with your general observations. Why is it so difficult to do those things in our country? Again, excellent post. Thanks.


Tnedator tried to answer honestly my question for the definition of "Liberal". I appreciate that. If you take the extreme, "do or die" positon on all those those issues, then you'd have a "liberal" in my mind. Problem is, those positions are not lineal. Suppose one is a strong believer in "health care for all" but is lukewarm on the other issues you listed. I know of no conservative who believes that anyone should be denied health care if he/she/it needs it. So, the issue is paying for it. But suppose that is the only issue I feel strongly about. Does that make me a "liberal?" Same question for the conservative position, If I believe in a strong defense but also health care for all, what am I?

My point is that labels are, in fact, meaningless. What say you?

I agree, labels are generally a useless way of dealing with issues. They end up creating simplistic limits, when in fact classifications such Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, etc should be used as jumping off points for discussion, general guidance as to what people believe in with regards to certain issues and methods, but never fully encapsulating any individual or group.

[Paladin]

Good points enrolas and Ro.

I had read a piece in a magazine (I think Newsweek or some such) that detailed the advances made in many of the areas ginita outlined and managed to stay stable fopr four years or so. It almost feels like you need a Congress where both parties hangs togetrher if they don't do something for the better of the US. Welfare Reform came under Clinton but it was a torng Republican Congress at the time IIRC. A third party might serve a goosing function, maybe not since the money goes to the bigger parties where the donors can get some clout. Perot used the words: "Listen to that giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the US". That was true, but it didn't resonate. Anderson tried to introduce sanity to the politics of the time, but that didn't resonate.

Is it possible that the parties are captured by unchanaging and unbending elements any real change has to be done incrementally?

Thus far, I have learned a good deal from you all. And I thank you for that.....

[BroncoBuff]

If Obama turns the reins of power over to Pelosi and Reid, in two years the government will be turned out and he'll be dealing with rabid dog Boehner. Americans are sick of ideology. They just want competence. And they'll keep swinging the government back and forth until they get it.
Good conventional wisdom point, but when you look closer it'll be four years minimum, thusly:

In a couple weeks Democrats will have perhaps a 270-165 majority in the House ... 261-174 minimum. Either number would be nearly impossible to make up in a single election cycle.

In the Senate, Democrats will have between 56-59 senators in a couple weeks. So for the GOP to gain back a majority in 2010, they would need a 8-10-seat turnover with just 33 seats up. Virtually impossible.

[Rohirrim]

Good conventional wisdom point, but when you look closer it'll be four years minimum, thusly:

In a couple weeks Democrats will have perhaps a 270-165 majority in the House ... 261-174 minimum. Either number would be nearly impossible to make up in a single election cycle.

In the Senate, Democrats will have between 56-59 senators in a couple weeks. So for the GOP to gain back a majority in 2010, they would need a 8-10-seat turnover with just 33 seats up. Virtually impossible.

I just hope the Dems don't make the same mistakes the GOP made and get arrogant. Pride goeth before a fall, as the old saying goes. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just hope the Dems don't make the same mistakes the GOP made and get arrogant. Pride goeth before a fall, as the old saying goes. ;D

By the same token, I hope they use their mandate to undo as much of the Bush idiocy as they can while they can.

[Miss I.]

By the same token, I hope they use their mandate to undo as much of the Bush idiocy as they can while they can.
Is there anyway to have the last 8 years blotted out of my memory? Hmm, frontal lobotomy perhaps? Maybe that's it. Why George is the way he is, he had his entire brain removed? Or it's like in Young Frankenstein, when they put together the monster, they put in the brain, Abby Normal.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is there anyway to have the last 8 years blotted out of my memory? Hmm, frontal lobotomy perhaps? Maybe that's it. Why George is the way he is, he had his entire brain removed? Or it's like in Young Frankenstein, when they put together the monster, they put in the brain, Abby Normal.

Ha!

When they slapped Dim Son together, they forgot to install a brain and a heart/conscience.

I just hope it's not too late for America to recover from the damage this despicable POS has done.

[Miss I.]

Ha!

When they slapped Dim Son together, they forgot to install a brain and a heart/conscience.

I just hope it's not too late for America to recover from the damage this despicable POS has done.

Holy mackeral, I finally have it. We have been living the Wizard of Oz. A giant natural disaster (aka tornado or the Bush administration) sends Dorothy (America) on a wacked out journey in a multicolored world where houses crash and land on people (the housing crisis putting people under) and American goes on a long weird journey with a character without a brain (Bush), without a heart (Cheney) and without courage (Rumsfeld). Either that or I have had too much beer tonight.

[SJ Bronco]

Holy mackeral, I finally have it. We have been living the Wizard of Oz. A giant natural disaster (aka tornado or the Bush administration) sends Dorothy (America) on a wacked out journey in a multicolored world where houses crash and land on people (the housing crisis putting people under) and American goes on a long weird journey with a character without a brain (Bush), without a heart (Cheney) and without courage (Rumsfeld). Either that or I have had too much beer tonight.

It takes one hell of a mind to think that up!:spit: Rep

[BABronco]

i doubt it ..... the man is on record for saying he agreed over 90% of the time with Bush , now he is throwing Bush under the Bus ......... People will see it as that

spider, I believe you underestimate the stupidity of your typical American vote.

[SJ Bronco]

spider, I believe you underestimate the stupidity of your typical American vote.

I see that McCain is still in the race....so I don't...:wiggle:

Seriously, people really need to get there head of their emotions and vote with their heads, do the research (not just watch campaign rhetoric) , and think about society to some extent. Not just force their personal opinion on people. I have a lot of personal opinions that would make me conservative, but I restrain that for what i think benefits all of us.

[Paladin]

I agree. It's that simple.

[TheDave]

Socialized health care

You really need to read his plan... The VA is socialized health care. His plan is no where near that

Expansion of welfare

Where has Obama called for an expansion of Welfare?

Wealth re-distribution

All taxation, is wealth re-distribution.

Gun Control

Everybody believes in gun control to some degree (well everyone but w*gs that is). Nobody wants AK47's on the street... there needs to be some type of common sense gun controls. Obama has never said anything more extreme than that.

Refusal to use domestic energy options -- using the 'environment' as an excuse

How is wind, solar, clean coal, natural gas, nuclear, and even off-shore drilling a "Refusal to use domestic energy sources"?

Wanting legislature to force companies to unionize, rather than continuing to leave it up to the employees of said company

I've seen you complain about this several times, in fairness i need to read up on it to see what they are really attempting to do.

In general, like with the uninion issue, taking a stance that the government knows more about what an individual or employee needs, than that very individual or employee

Yeah cause OSHA is such a bad idea...





I realize you were trying to conjure up an extreme liberal bogeyman, but the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of our political leaders are nothing more than left leaning or right leaning centrists.
.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Holy mackeral, I finally have it. We have been living the Wizard of Oz. A giant natural disaster (aka tornado or the Bush administration) sends Dorothy (America) on a wacked out journey in a multicolored world where houses crash and land on people (the housing crisis putting people under) and American goes on a long weird journey with a character without a brain (Bush), without a heart (Cheney) and without courage (Rumsfeld). Either that or I have had too much beer tonight.

:giggle:

Better get to work on the screenplay and start making the rounds of all the major studios.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

.

Memo to tned:

If we want the latest RNC talking points, we can sign up for the e-mail list.

[rastaman]

I think it really comes down to whether you think the extreme liberal views will be good for this country. I don't just mean Obama's, but in congress.

There is a very real chance that if Obama is elected, there will be no checks in place. Meaning, a liberal president with a democratic congress/Senate, with the possibility of 60+ senators to prevent any veto.

So, for instance, one of the things the democratic congress has been pushing for a while is to want to change union votes to open, rather than secret ballots. The ONLY reason for this is to force unions into companies that don't want them, because up til now, workers that didn't want unions, could sign the public cards that 50% of workers must sign, thereby protecting themselves from intimidation from other workers or union leaders, but then voting against the union in the secret votes.

This is just one example of what an unchecked president/congress will push through. Is that change in terms of unions bad? That's for a different discussion, but the point is that there will be no president to veto legislation like this and there may very well be no filibuster to force bi-partisan debate and agreement on bills.

That was the flipside of your question. So, the real question is not whether electing John McCain will be a disaster, but instead the question is will there be a disaster if he isn't elected. I guess only time will tell.

Interesting points. I think that if McCain is elected, he will continue whats known as "Supply Side Economic" policies used by Reagan, Bush I & II. Lets take a look at what a McCain Admin. would intell. Its been argued that America's economic, domestic, and financial woes and failures can all be traced back to 1981, when Reagan instituted Supply Side Economics. In other words, Supply Side economics rewards the rich both coming and going. Higher government debt leads to higher interest rates for all borrowing — or in their case, lending. And then, they get to pay lower and lower taxes on their higher and higher earnings. It is a magical two-fer worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

The one thing the Supply Side economics excels at and not surprising is debt and deficits. Bush turned a $136 billion surplus from Bill Clinton into a $158 billion deficit in his first year. When he took office, the national debt stood at $5.8 trillion. And is projected to hit over $10 trillion at the end of 2008 when Bush’s second term is over. The ten-year cumulative deficit forecast by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has changed from a $5.6 trillion surplus in January 2001 to a $3.4 trillion deficit in March of 2006 alone!!!! We are talking here an almost inconceivable swing of $9 trillion to the worse in only six years. Supply Side economics produces middling growth, soaring deficits, and broad based debt. Mountains of debt. And the mountains are growing.

If Obama is elected, he needs to immediately stop! Republican Supply Side Economics, and replace it with a Clintonesque "Demand Side Economics". Under the Clinton Admin. and Demand Side economics, as we saw in the 1990s, while far from perfect, it produced robust growth, budgetary surpluses, and broad based prosperity. An Obama W.H. will copy Bill Clinton when Clinton reversed Reagan’s Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class.

The Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It wasn’t even close. The economy performed dramatically better in almost every way once Supply Side policies were replaced with Demand Side policies.

In order for Obama to salvage any kind of economic sanity and prevent the bankruptcy of this nation, the next Congress must reverse the Supply Side agenda and return the country to a responsible fiscal course. The only way Obama will be able to return to a Demand Side Economic policy will be to have 60 vote Democrat majority in the Senate. Republicans in Congress if given the opportunity will fight tooth n nail to ensure an Obama W.H. and Democrats in Congress from implementing "Demand Side Economics" by using Filibusters at record levels just as Republicans have done over the last two years during the 110th Congress.

Republicans in Congress were able to filibuster and obstruct due the the Dems having a slim majority. If the American people want to see the business of the people get done, and see a return to a Clintonesque Demand Side Economy, voters had better make sure that they give the Obama W.H. a 60 vote Democrat Senate.

Simply put.......Clinton proved Demand Side Economics WORKED FOR EVERYONE!!! Reagan, Bush I & II and McCain had/will prove that Supply Side Economics only works for Wall Street.....and screws MAIN STREET.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0514-20.htm

[Paladin]

What a great post. Nice explanation of the current situation. I think if Hilary had made it, that is exactly what she would have done. Can Obama so that? Maybe, particulary with the majority votes in the Senate and House.

Now that makes sense to me......

Thanks for the find......

[BroncoBuff]

The computer/internet boom, 99% based upon U.S. technology, had a lot to do with the 90's economic expansion, too.

What we need now is another boom, with demand-side politics to steer it in more responsible ways. And I think I know what it is. Thomas Friedman's new book "Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America (http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-Revolution-America/dp/0374166854/ref=sr_oe_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224995313&sr=1-1).

Normally I don't care that much for Friedman, he's boring and he talks in circles. But this book is exactly what I've been talking (and posting) about for a long time ... that major technological breakthroughs in renewable clean energy will enrich whomever and which ever country invents them immeasurably. It'll make the Internet boom look small by comparison.

[enjolras]

Denver, in particular, will be at the forefront of the green boom. We already have several companies headquartering here, along with Conoco establishing a giant research facility in Broomfield.

It's going to be good times for those of us in the mountain west I think:)

[tnedator]

I realize you were trying to conjure up an extreme liberal bogeyman, but the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of our political leaders are nothing more than left leaning or right leaning centrists.
.

Nice breakdown, but irrelevant. I never said those were all Obama's positions.

Palidin posed this question/statement: I think it would be productive to ask what exactly is an "extreme Liberal Philosophy".

I listed some positions that I stated that I felt people on the right and even some centrists viewed as extreme liberal positions.

I did not say that Obama held all of these views or positions. That was a leap you made.

[rastaman]

What a great post. Nice explanation of the current situation. I think if Hilary had made it, that is exactly what she would have done. Can Obama so that? Maybe, particulary with the majority votes in the Senate and House.

Now that makes sense to me......

Thanks for the find......

No problem.^5

[rastaman]

Denver, in particular, will be at the forefront of the green boom. We already have several companies headquartering here, along with Conoco establishing a giant research facility in Broomfield.

It's going to be good times for those of us in the mountain west I think:)

One thing is certain, the next president must embark upon some type of Manhattan Project-Space race to the moon attitude, vision, and perseverance when it comes to alternative fuels and energy. These new innovations dealing with green technologies will provide 10's of millions of new jobs that can't be outsourced, and will lesson the U.S. as a service sector economy an make America a country of producers.

[tnedator]

One thing is certain, the next president must embark upon some type of Manhattan Project-Space race to the moon attitude, vision, and perseverance when it comes to alternative fuels and energy. These new innovations dealing with green technologies will provide 10's of millions of new jobs that can't be outsourced, and will lesson the U.S. as a service sector economy an make America a country of producers.

Npba,

Are you for or against including nuclear in those plans?

That will create jobs to build them and run them, reduce the use of both coal and natural gas in energy production, which can divert natural gas to cars, as well as traditional home heating-type uses. It is green in terms of ongoing operation, but then there is the problem of spent fuel, which is not so green.

[rastaman]

Npba,

Are you for or against including nuclear in those plans?

That will create jobs to build them and run them, reduce the use of both coal and natural gas in energy production, which can divert natural gas to cars, as well as traditional home heating-type uses. It is green in terms of ongoing operation, but then there is the problem of spent fuel, which is not so green.

Tnedator.......for what its worth, I'm not Npba in the Orange Mane....I'd rather you call me Rastaman!

Well we do have an over abundancy of coal, but the problem with using both coal and nuclear plans is getting to the point where you can burn coal cleanly, and of course how do get safely and environmentally get rid/dispose of nuclear waste safely.

[tnedator]

Tnedator.......for what its worth, I'm not Npba in the Orange Mane....I'd rather you call me Rastaman!

Well we do have an over abundancy of coal, but the problem with using both coal and nuclear plans is getting to the point where you can burn coal cleanly, and of course how do get safely and environmentally get rid/dispose of nuclear waste safely.

Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with duel names. It's easier if I think of the person by one name on both boards. I'll try not to do the conversion in my head.

So, do YOU think nuclear should be one of the options for weaning our country off foreign oil?

[tnedator]

Tnedator.......for what its worth, I'm not Npba in the Orange Mane....I'd rather you call me Rastaman!


By the way, since we are being open and honest about the names we prefer, when I post on the Orangemane, I prefer to go by Tnedator, or even Tned or T is ok, but I really prefer not to go by Socio-pathic liar, dictator, Switch-Hitter and some of the other choice names you called me when you were pretending to be an objective bystander standing up for the down trodden and banned BF posters, rather than manning up to being the recently banned Npba900.

Anyway, since we have those pleasant re-introductions out of the way. I look forward to having many political debates with you, Rastaman.

[rastaman]

By the way, since we are being open and honest about the names we prefer, when I post on the Orangemane, I prefer to go by Tnedator, or even Tned or T is ok, but I really prefer not to go by Socio-pathic liar, dictator, Switch-Hitter and some of the other choice names you called me when you were pretending to be an objective bystander standing up for the down trodden and banned BF posters, rather than manning up to being the recently banned Npba900.

Anyway, since we have those pleasant re-introductions out of the way. I look forward to having many political debates with you, Rastaman.

Well I respectfully disagree with you and you gotta give it a rest. You tend to bring out the worst in people due to your behavior and elitist attitude. You were in a position of responsibility and power as a moderator over in the BF and you have failed miserable in this regard.

You decided to unleash forever changing rules to placate to cry baby/tattle tale mob rule conservatives who dominate the BF political forum. However, I also told you to keep narrowing the debate and constantly changing the rules DAILY and WEEKLY in the BF political section and you will soon have the audience you want.

Hang in there and persevere, you are almost there, the BF Purging of members who have a difference of opinion will get done. I hope this clears the air btwn you and I.....if not! Oh well, life goes on...right!

Have a nice day Tnedator. :thumbsup:

[rastaman]

Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with duel names. It's easier if I think of the person by one name on both boards. I'll try not to do the conversion in my head.

So, do YOU think nuclear should be one of the options for weaning our country off foreign oil?

Hang in there Tneator......it wasn't my intent to confuse you. As you can see we are talking about two different forums. I find it rather boring to keep the same name for two different forums.

Getting back to nuclear technology and its role it can play with switching over to alternative energy......if we can find a way to dispose of the waste safely from a environmental perspective, sure give it a shot.

There are many alternative energy sources that are sustainable and do not pose the accident risks inherent in nuclear energy production. These sources include:

Bioenergy: biomass, such as plant matter and animal waste, can yield power, heat, steam, and fuel.

Geothermal: renewable heat energy can be harnessed from deep within the earth.

Wind: turbines turning in the air convert kinetic energy in the wind into electricity.

Solar: the sun’s energy can be captured and used to produce heat and electricity.

Hydrogen: if produced by renewable sources, it can power fuel cells to convert chemical energy directly into electricity, with useful heat and water as the only byproducts.

Tidal: using the movement of the ocean to power turbines and generate electricity.

[tnedator]

Have a nice day Tnedator. :thumbsup:


I assume that means you agree that from here out you are Rastaman and I am Tnedator on the Mane, and you will cease with your infantile name calling? It was hard to tell with your "woe is me" blathering.

Getting back to nuclear technology and its role it can play with switching over to alternative energy......if we can find a way to dispose of the waste safely from a environmental perspective, sure give it a shot.

There are many alternative energy sources that are sustainable and do not pose the accident risks inherent in nuclear energy production. These sources include:

Bioenergy: biomass, such as plant matter and animal waste, can yield power, heat, steam, and fuel.

Geothermal: renewable heat energy can be harnessed from deep within the earth.

Wind: turbines turning in the air convert kinetic energy in the wind into electricity.

Solar: the sun’s energy can be captured and used to produce heat and electricity.

Hydrogen: if produced by renewable sources, it can power fuel cells to convert chemical energy directly into electricity, with useful heat and water as the only byproducts.

Tidal: using the movement of the ocean to power turbines and generate electricity.

All of those sources are great, but can they be produced in a timely fashion, but more important produce a meaningful amount of energy in the time frame we need it, even with a "space race" approach?

[Paladin]

I would submit that building nuclear plants take much longer to do than to institute other forms of energy producing efforts. I am quite concerned about the disposal of the waste , so I would lean more towards the clean coal technology. I would have no idea what the costs comparisons would be, nor do I think the number of jobs created are necessarily comparable between the different energy pursuits. I am surprised that natural gas has not been mentioned. Honda has a natural Gas vehicle on the road now. They did use a Hydrogen powered car in China during the Olympics.

I would grant that using all forms of energy production makes sense.

I agree that a massive effort has to be made to deal with the energy issues. That can create many jobs, and I hope the next President doesn't fall into the Big Oil trap. (I fear the big money in this campaign on either side - if not for the presidential race, then the local Senate and House races - as being threats to the hoped for Energy Push.....)

It sounds to me that we have a potential proposal. Solve the Energy needs, and move to demand side economics, buttress the Middle Class economically and create jobs that cannot be outsourced.


On a side note, this has been a very informative thread. I really appreciate all of the input.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Npba,

Are you for or against including nuclear in those plans?

That will create jobs to build them and run them, reduce the use of both coal and natural gas in energy production, which can divert natural gas to cars, as well as traditional home heating-type uses. It is green in terms of ongoing operation, but then there is the problem of spent fuel, which is not so green.Nuclear power plants do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They cost many times more than coal plants and take 4 to 5 times as long to construct one. The waste NEVER goes away.

[enjolras]

Nuclear power plants do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They cost many times more than coal plants and take 4 to 5 times as long to construct one. The waste NEVER goes away.

Nuclear is going to be a NECESSARY part of any hydrogen economy. The cost, as with everything else, goes way down at scale. This is one thing McCain is absolutely right about..

[Paladin]

Very good points, BB. Maybe there is too much made of nuclear plants? Frankly, I see them as greater security and safety risks with greater cost/benefits downsides. Wind power and coal power do not directly address the oil issues , do they? The Oil issue is as much a transportation issue as anything.....

[Paladin]

Nuclear is going to be a NECESSARY part of any hydrogen economy. The cost, as with everything else, goes way down at scale. This is one thing McCain is absolutely right about..

Necessary? How so?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nuclear is going to be a NECESSARY part of any hydrogen economy. The cost, as with everything else, goes way down at scale. This is one thing McCain is absolutely right about..Nuclear power plants are not.

And the costs of nuclear power plants will never go down, only up. I've built them.

Very good points, BB. Maybe there is too much made of nuclear plants? Frankly, I see them as greater security and safety risks with greater cost/benefits downsides. Wind power and coal power do not directly address the oil issues , do they? The Oil issue is as much a transportation issue as anything.....
Power generation in our country has almost zero to do with our (foreign) oil consumption.

[TheDave]

Nice breakdown, but irrelevant. I never said those were all Obama's positions.

Palidin posed this question/statement: I think it would be productive to ask what exactly is an "extreme Liberal Philosophy".

I listed some positions that I stated that I felt people on the right and even some centrists viewed as extreme liberal positions.

I did not say that Obama held all of these views or positions. That was a leap you made.

Thats why I said what I did... This extreme liberal position does not exist in todays politics. Sure their are small fringe groups on both sides, but the voting majorities on both sides are simply right and left versions of each other. You are arguing against something that does not exist.

[tnedator]

Thats why I said what I did... This extreme liberal position does not exist in todays politics. Sure their are small fringe groups on both sides, but the voting majorities on both sides are simply right and left versions of each other. You are arguing against something that does not exist.

First, you aswered those as if I stated that they were Obama's positions, which I didn't. So, you were confused on that, but it is understandable since I am not an Obama supporter, so it is assume that anything I say is anti-Obama.

Second, from your left of center viewpoint, you say these aren't liberal positions that many, many people find extreme, but the fact is they are considered such to many people.

[TheDave]

First, you aswered those as if I stated that they were Obama's positions, which I didn't. So, you were confused on that, but it is understandable since I am not an Obama supporter, so it is assume that anything I say is anti-Obama.

Second, from your left of center viewpoint, you say these aren't liberal positions that many, many people find extreme, but the fact is they are considered such to many people.

Again you are doing it in this thread... None of the extreme liberal views you list, exist in any real majority.

Relax...

[Paladin]

tnedator was responding to a question I asked about what defines an EXTREME LIBERAL belief system or positions. He does not need defending, but I did want to clarify that point.

The reason I asked it is because those "positions" represent some level of perceived "Wrong" or issue ion our culture. If these are identified, then perhaps a reasonable approach to these issues could be helpful in helping the culture to evolve to (where ever it is going to evolve). In the interest of moving the ball forward in taking a rational view of the issues in this country - absent any "party-itis" or political preferences per se - I posed that question. I agree there would be very few people who would hold all those positions to the extreme, but there are varying shadows of acceptance or rejection of those premises among most people.

If I created a side problems with that, I am sorry. However, I have seen some great discussion here.

[tnedator]

Again you are doing it in this thread... None of the extreme liberal views you list, exist in any real majority.

Relax...

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. What do you mean any "real majority" and what do you mean "I am doing it again in this thread".

If you could get past your prejudging of my positions, stance, GOP talking points hotline, etc., we could just discuss the issues.

Paladin posed the question of what some people consider extreme liberal positions. These are positions that I see and here people concerned about and consider extreme liberal position.

The very term "extreme liberal position" indicates that it isn't a "mainstream liberal" position, but one held by the far-left extremists (just like the right wing extremists hold their own extreme views).

Where have I said it is a mainstream liberal view? It seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing, when all I did was ask Palidins question as to what is extreme liberal positions.

Like it or not, many Americans (not enough, based on the polls) are concerned that if the stars are aligned, with a democratic, congress, president, senate (with 60+) opens up the 'potential' for some of these extreme views, held by some of the most liberal democrats to get pushed through.

Gun control, for instance, you say everyone believes in some kind of gun control. Well, that is close to true. When it comes to fully automatic weapons, which are already banned, all but a small fringe would be opposed to allowing automatic weapons. However, when it comes to some semi-automatic guns, including guns like AK-47s and AR-15s, many Americans don't see a need for banning them.

It's like saying the "debate is over" on global warming. Just because Gore said it, doesn't make it true. The debate is alive and well, and there are varied opinions from some very smart people.

The "green" DNC freaked a lot of people out, because it makes liberals look whacko to many people in the center or right or center. Not all, but many.

I didn't list the 'mainstream' liberal views that many right leaning people have issue with or are concerned about, I just addressed some of the "extreme liberal" views that might not be main stream democratic stances, but they are held by enough that it freaks many people out.

[rastaman]

I assume that means you agree that from here out you are Rastaman and I am Tnedator on the Mane, and you will cease with your infantile name calling? It was hard to tell with your "woe is me" blathering.

All of those sources are great, but can they be produced in a timely fashion, but more important produce a meaningful amount of energy in the time frame we need it, even with a "space race" approach?

Tnedator you need to CEASE being so dramatic alright. Let's move on.

Lastly, I think we are a lot closer to achieving and producing alternative fuels to wean ourselves off foreign oil, if this country is willing to invest billions over the next 5 years. Both govt and private entities must come together and collaborate this. Just as what was done and accomplished to put a man on the moon.

[baja]

Tnedator you need to CEASE being so dramatic alright. Let's move on.

Lastly, I think we are a lot closer to achieving and producing alternative fuels to wean ourselves off foreign oil, if this country is willing to invest billions over the next 5 years. Both govt and private entities must come together and collaborate this. Just as what was done and accomplished to put a man on the moon.

Have you seen Exon's or Mobile's profit sheet lately. What you are suggesting will never happen as long as those profits are available.

[Paladin]

I would say that if we do not invest in alternative fuels, this country will cease to exist in 20 to 25 years....

[baja]

I would say that if we do not invest in alternative fuels, this country will cease to exist in 20 to 25 years....

I am sure you have noticed there is no logic when it comes to greed.

[baja]

Hey I just noticed I lost a bunch of posts, I bet the repugs purged them.

[Paladin]

Not here. I think most everyone here has contributed to a very interesting and informative thread.....

[TheDave]

Like it or not, many Americans (not enough, based on the polls) are concerned that if the stars are aligned, with a democratic, congress, president, senate (with 60+) opens up the 'potential' for some of these extreme views, held by some of the most liberal democrats to get pushed through.

I disagreee that those "Extreme liberal views" are held by enough people to become law. I think "Many Americans" Including you are afraid of something that doesn't exist.



Gun control, for instance, you say everyone believes in some kind of gun control. Well, that is close to true. When it comes to fully automatic weapons, which are already banned, all but a small fringe would be opposed to allowing automatic weapons. However, when it comes to some semi-automatic guns, including guns like AK-47s and AR-15s, many Americans don't see a need for banning them.

Again doesn't seem like much to worry about. No one is trying to ban your hand guns or your shot guns or your rifles. But there are enough people who don't like your AK-47's and AR-15's and want to figure out a way to keep them in check. Thats just a poblem of democracy, sometimes more people disagree so they get their way.

It's like saying the "debate is over" on global warming. Just because Gore said it, doesn't make it true. The debate is alive and well, and there are varied opinions from some very smart people.

The "green" DNC freaked a lot of people out, because it makes liberals look whacko to many people in the center or right or center. Not all, but many.

It isn't the "Green DNC" or Al Gore that are the problem. It's that the VAST majority of peer reviewed published science states Global Warming is at the least a problem we are contributing to. So like it or not we need to conserve more energy and we need to look for cleaner sources of it. That doesn't mean we will all be living in tofu huts, it just means that we need to take a few steps in the other dirrection. If you are against conservation and cleaner sources of energy then you need to change the opinion of the scientific community.

I didn't list the 'mainstream' liberal views that many right leaning people have issue with or are concerned about, I just addressed some of the "extreme liberal" views that might not be main stream democratic stances, but they are held by enough that it freaks many people out.

You keep saying that, then why is it that everytime you cite a liberal view it is of the boogieman variety?

[tnedator]

I disagreee that those "Extreme liberal views" are held by enough people to become law. I think "Many Americans" Including you are afraid of something that doesn't exist.

That might very well be true, but that wasn't the question that Palidin posed. He posed the question of what are seen as "extreme liberal views" and I listed some that definately fall into that category, whether or not they are likely to happen was that part of the question.

I think we have zero chance to move to socialized or nationalized health care in any short term scenario. Just thinking about the logistical shift that would be necessary to move to something like England's NHS, is mind boggling.

Again, the question wasn't about things that might happen only in this president's term, but what many consider "extreme liberal views".


Again doesn't seem like much to worry about. No one is trying to ban your hand guns or your shot guns or your rifles. But there are enough people who don't like your AK-47's and AR-15's and want to figure out a way to keep them in check. Thats just a poblem of democracy, sometimes more people disagree so they get their way.

That is not true. Most states that have passed concealed carry laws have had very tough fights led by democrats/liberals trying to prevent it. When Clinton was president, ridiculous laws were passed, like outlawing pistol magazines with over a 10 round capacity, classifying semi-automatic hunting rifles (with five round capacities) as "assault weapons".

To say that many liberals are not in favor of MUCH stricter gun control, is simply untrue.


It isn't the "Green DNC" or Al Gore that are the problem. It's that the VAST majority of peer reviewed published science states Global Warming is at the least a problem we are contributing to. So like it or not we need to conserve more energy and we need to look for cleaner sources of it. That doesn't mean we will all be living in tofu huts, it just means that we need to take a few steps in the other dirrection. If you are against conservation and cleaner sources of energy then you need to change the opinion of the scientific community.

And, over the last year or so, more and more scientists have reversed their position on the "man made" effect of global warming, vs. the environmental effects. I am not smart enough to know which school of thought is correct, but many well known, well respected scientists have admitted to getting "caught up" in the global warming movement and citing the "man made" aspect as "the" cause, without actually having scientific proof to back it up.

Clearly the debate isn't over, or so many scientists wouldn't be jumping off the man made global warming band wagon. Many that have jumped ship are not ready to say it isn't man made, or that man isn't contributing, but instead that there are too many unkowns and there is evidence of cyclical and environmental (natural) impacts that have a greater impact than fossil fuels.

You keep saying that, then why is it that everytime you cite a liberal view it is of the boogieman variety?

You see what you want to see. You have pre-judged me from my first post in WPR, so I guess there isn't much I can do to change that. It's your loss, not mine.

[TheDave]

That is not true. Most states that have passed concealed carry laws have had very tough fights led by democrats/liberals trying to prevent it. When Clinton was president, ridiculous laws were passed, like outlawing pistol magazines with over a 10 round capacity, classifying semi-automatic hunting rifles (with five round capacities) as "assault weapons".

To say that many liberals are not in favor of MUCH stricter gun control, is simply untrue.

and thats the beauty of democracy. There are going to be serious fights for new legsaislature. But none of the serious debate is about removing your second ammendment rights. I apologize if a 10 round magazine is to tough and constricting for you but obviously enough people disagree to make it a debate. Let the people who feel this is important fight it out.


And, over the last year or so, more and more scientists have reversed their position on the "man made" effect of global warming, vs. the environmental effects. I am not smart enough to know which school of thought is correct, but many well known, well respected scientists have admitted to getting "caught up" in the global warming movement and citing the "man made" aspect as "the" cause, without actually having scientific proof to back it up.

Clearly the debate isn't over, or so many scientists wouldn't be jumping off the man made global warming band wagon. Many that have jumped ship are not ready to say it isn't man made, or that man isn't contributing, but instead that there are too many unkowns and there is evidence of cyclical and environmental (natural) impacts that have a greater impact than fossil fuels.

No one is saying the debate is over, but to pretend science has quietly migrated over yourur side is false. As of ow the VAST majority of "peer reviewed science" is on my side of the fence. Facts are facts.


You see what you want to see. You have pre-judged me from my first post in WPR, so I guess there isn't much I can do to change that. It's your loss, not mine.

You don't play victim very well... to be honest i'm not sure why you are trying.

[Bronco Bob]

And, over the last year or so, more and more scientists have reversed their position on the "man made" effect of global warming, vs. the environmental effects. I am not smart enough to know which school of thought is correct, but many well known, well respected scientists have admitted to getting "caught up" in the global warming movement and citing the "man made" aspect as "the" cause, without actually having scientific proof to back it up.

Clearly the debate isn't over, or so many scientists wouldn't be jumping off the man made global warming band wagon. Many that have jumped ship are not ready to say it isn't man made, or that man isn't contributing, but instead that there are too many unkowns and there is evidence of cyclical and environmental (natural) impacts that have a greater impact than fossil fuels.



List 25 legitimate climate scientists who have changed their position
and no longer say that a) the overall global temperature is rising.
b) increased levels of CO2 in the environment is responsible for this rise
c) burning of fossil fuels is the reason for the increased levels of CO2.

I don't even consider 25 to be many, but I want to see if you can
even come up with that amount since you seem so convinced this
is happening. And no, I don't consider an oncologist or a civil engineer
to be an expert in global warming. I want people who have devoted
their careers in fields related to climate, people who know what they are
talking about.

Face it, you global warming contrarians are screwed no matter if McCain
or Obama wins, because both are onboard that global warming is real
and manmade. Your only hope is McCain wins and dies soon after the
election so that Palin is the president.

[tnedator]

and thats the beauty of democracy. There are going to be serious fights for new legsaislature. But none of the serious debate is about removing your second ammendment rights. I apologize if a 10 round magazine is to tough and constricting for you but obviously enough people disagree to make it a debate. Let the people who feel this is important fight it out.

Sarcasm and smear. Geez, are you incapable of just discussing/debating a subject?

Again, if we go back to the original list, it were issues that concern many Americans and are considered "extreme liberal" views. Yes, there are many liberals that want to take all guns away. That is a simple fact. The problem is that the current makeup of the supreme court will not allow that, but that doesn't mean that depending on which party is in control, that the amount of freedom in terms of guns shifts.

There is also no doubt that with a major shift in the supreme court, the interpretation of the 2nd amendment would change.



No one is saying the debate is over, but to pretend science has quietly migrated over yourur side is false. The debate is far from over but as of ow the VAST majority of "peer reviewed science"is on my side of the fence. Facts are facts.

First, once again, you prejudge. You ASSume which side I am on. I am torn on the subject, and have read compelling arguments both in terms of it being primarily a "man made" problem, and compelling argument about the "man made" aspect being minimal.

I don't know the answer, but my general feeling is the 'safe' approach is to minimize the amount of pollution we dump on the planet (since it is our only one) and as quickly as possible move to non-carbon based fuels. However, in the meantime, I say exploit all of our natural resources. Stop requiring thousands of applications and years to get a new refinery built or a refinery retrofitted.

You don't play victim very well... to be honest i'm not sure why you are trying.

It's not about playing the victim, it's about pointing out what should be obvious to you. Because I am not a card-carrying democrat, that loves Obama, and decries the GOP at every turn, you STEREOTYPE me, and assume I hold positions, which in many cases I don't.

I am not some mindless robot that holds every view the most right wing republicans hold. You act like there is some GOP by-laws and every republican agrees in blood to some 'list' of things they believe. It is simply ridiculous.

Every person has their own views. Some will be in line with Bush, some McCain, some with other GOP candidates/elected officials (presidential or otherwise) and SOME will be in line with candidates like Obama, or Clinton.

I keep coming back here primarily because it is comical, and I enjoy the feeling of beating my head against a brick wall. However, the degree with which a handful of you guys stereotype is simply mind boggling. While you can make very pointed and intelligent arguments on one hand, many of you simply resort to elementary school name calling and stereotyping whenever someone doesn't agree with you.

Why not instead, just DISCUSS the issues, without the assumptions and stereotypes? Just saying...

[tnedator]

List 25 legitimate climate scientists who have changed their position
and no longer say that a) the overall global temperature is rising.
b) increased levels of CO2 in the environment is responsible for this rise
c) burning of fossil fuels is the reason for the increased levels of CO2.

I don't even consider 25 to be many, but I want to see if you can
even come up with that amount since you seem so convinced this
is happening. And no, I don't consider an oncologist or a civil engineer
to be an expert in global warming. I want people who have devoted
their careers in fields related to climate, people who know what they are
talking about.

Face it, you global warming contrarians are screwed no matter if McCain
or Obama wins, because both are onboard that global warming is real
and manmade. Your only hope is McCain wins and dies soon after the
election so that Palin is the president.

I'm not going to go look up names, because I have no way of defining "legitimate". I am not talking about the stupid list if 10,000 signatures or whatever, and as I have clearly stated, and I not a global warming contrarian. I have stated, I am not smart enough, nor in the necessary field, to know what is science and what is propoganda.

I know when the senate released their report last year (I think it was last year), there were many scientists, not oncologists, who stated they had changed their position, and explained why.

On a regular basis, articles are published, referencing scientists, some presented as well respected and from major universities or institutes, that have stated concern over the rush to 'conclude' that the problem is man made.

[TheDave]

Sarcasm and smear. Geez, are you incapable of just discussing/debating a subject?

You complain way to much... I'm very calmly addressing your points.

First, once again, you prejudge. You ASSume which side I am on. I am torn on the subject, and have read compelling arguments both in terms of it being primarily a "man made" problem, and compelling argument about the "man made" aspect being minimal.

Again I'm just addressing your posts... If thats not how you feel then maybe you should present your opinions more carefully.


It's not about playing the victim, it's about pointing out what should be obvious to you. Because I am not a card-carrying democrat, that loves Obama, and decries the GOP at every turn, you STEREOTYPE me, and assume I hold positions, which in many cases I don't.

Again I'm just addressing YOUR POSTS....

I am not some mindless robot that holds every view the most right wing republicans hold. You act like there is some GOP by-laws and every republican agrees in blood to some 'list' of things they believe. It is simply ridiculous.

I never said anything like that... You're making **** up. (playing the victim again)

Every person has their own views. Some will be in line with Bush, some McCain, some with other GOP candidates/elected officials (presidential or otherwise) and SOME will be in line with candidates like Obama, or Clinton.

I keep coming back here primarily because it is comical, and I enjoy the feeling of beating my head against a brick wall. However, the degree with which a handful of you guys stereotype is simply mind boggling. While you can make very pointed and intelligent arguments on one hand, many of you simply resort to elementary school name calling and stereotyping whenever someone doesn't agree with you.

Why not instead, just DISCUSS the issues, without the assumptions and stereotypes? Just saying..

I'm trying to address the issues... problem is everytime you post something and i respond, you turn around and say that is not what you posted, cry that we are all just "stereotyping", and then inexplicably post something that you don't seem to agree with all over again.

It's hard to discuss things with you when you continually misrepresent your own views.

[tnedator]

You complain way to much... I'm very calmly addressing your points.

I didn't say you weren't calm, did I?


Again I'm just addressing your posts... If thats not how you feel then maybe you should present your opinions more carefully.

Again I'm just addressing YOUR POSTS....

I never said anything like that... You're making **** up. (playing the victim again)

I'm trying to address the issues... problem is everytime you post something and i respond, you turn around and say that is not what you posted, cry that we are all just "stereotyping", and then inexplicably post something that you don't seem to agree with all over again.

It's hard to discuss things with you when you continually misrepresent your own views.

There really isn't much to respond to here, because it is just "I'm Dave, I'm right" stuff.

However, where have I misrepresented my own views. That would be a good place to start and try and clear up your confusion.

[TheDave]

I didn't say you weren't calm, did I?

There really isn't much to respond to here, because it is just "I'm Dave, I'm right" stuff.

However, where have I misrepresented my own views. That would be a good place to start and try and clear up your confusion.

You complaning about peoples inability to discuss politics becomes more ironic with each post... Hilarious!

[tnedator]

You complaning about peoples inability to discuss politics becomes more ironic with each post... Hilarious!

Translation:

In all of your partisan rhetoric, you're not sure where I misrepresented my views, because that really wasn't the point of your posts.

I understand now.

[TheDave]

Translation:

In all of your partisan rhetoric, you're not sure where I misrepresented my views, because that really wasn't the point of your posts.

I understand now.


Yep, you got me...:thumbs:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm trying to address the issues... problem is everytime you post something and i respond, you turn around and say that is not what you posted, cry that we are all just "stereotyping", and then inexplicably post something that you don't seem to agree with all over again.

It's hard to discuss things with you when you continually misrepresent your own views.

These are just a couple of the reasons why I put the RNC spambot on ignore.

If I wanted to hear his propaganda, I could just sign up for the RNC or McCain/Palin mailing lists.

[tnedator]

These are just a couple of the reasons why I put the RNC spambot on ignore.

If I wanted to hear his propaganda, I could just sign up for the RNC or McCain/Palin mailing lists.

If you ever do sign up for it, maybe you can forward it to me and let me see what they are saying.

At least you moved off of the "straw man", "staw man" repetitive tick and on to the "RNC spambot", "RNC spambot".

ROFL!

[TheDave]

These are just a couple of the reasons why I put the RNC spambot on ignore.

If I wanted to hear his propaganda, I could just sign up for the RNC or McCain/Palin mailing lists.

Definitely one of the stranger conversations I've had on this forum... and that's sayin' something.

[tnedator]

Definitely one of the stranger conversations I've had on this forum... and that's sayin' something.

I think conversation was the key. It doesn't appear some of you are used to discussing items, but instead talking past each other and calling each names.

If you lose the prejudice and stereotypes and start being open to discussions, they might not feel so strange in the future.

[TheDave]

I think conversation was the key. It doesn't appear some of you are used to discussing items, but instead talking past each other and calling each names.

If you lose the prejudice and stereotypes and start being open to discussions, they might not feel so strange in the future.

What ever you say boss... :thumbs:

[Spider]

I think conversation was the key. It doesn't appear some of you are used to discussing items, but instead talking past each other and calling each names.

If you lose the prejudice and stereotypes and start being open to discussions, they might not feel so strange in the future.

Shut the hell up ...........you resort to the same bull**** .......... discussing items ...... WTF , discussing Bull**** isnt discussing Items ........ good grief , after something has been proved to be bull**** , people should drop it , but no you bedwetting jerks have to go with some crazy assed media bias conspiracy theory bull**** , and if we dont humor you bedwetters , then we are just shooting the messenger

[tnedator]

Shut the hell up ...........you resort to the same bull**** .......... discussing items ...... WTF , discussing Bull**** isnt discussing Items ........ good grief , after something has been proved to be bull**** , people should drop it , but no you bedwetting jerks have to go with some crazy assed media bias conspiracy theory bull**** , and if we dont humor you bedwetters , then we are just shooting the messenger

What are you babbling about? We weren't talking about media bias, we were talking about extreme liberal issues.

Honest question. You ok?

[Spider]

What are you babbling about? We weren't talking about media bias, we were talking about extreme liberal issues.

Honest question. You ok?

Oh bull**** , everyone here sees whats going on , you cant ban us , so you are going ot lecture us ......... on other threads Liberal Media bias is brought up alot , dont piss on my leg and tell me it is raining ........All you are trying to resurrect a lie , then take the high road about insults ........... Gent bent twiggy

[tnedator]

Oh bull**** , everyone here sees whats going on , you cant ban us , so you are going ot lecture us ......... on other threads Liberal Media bias is brought up alot , dont piss on my leg and tell me it is raining ........All you are trying to resurrect a lie , then take the high road about insults ........... Gent bent twiggy

Early on, you drug me into your childish name calling, like the ****ard stuff. I decided that responding in that way made me no better than you, so I am doing my best to discuss issues, even when people like you, LABF and some others simply through insult after insult.

Have I mentioned media bias? Yea, I think the last time was two months ago. It's a fact, it doesn't have to be constantly rehashed.

However, you completely disregarded Palidin's (the OP) request not to turn this into a name calling pile of crap, but instead to discuss issues.

At HIS request, I listed what many people consider extreme liberal issues. If you don't agree with my position, then by all means let's discuss it.

If all you want to do is attack me, I hope it brings some joy to your life. I'm ok either way.

[Spider]

Early on, you drug me into your childish name calling, like the ****ard stuff. I didnt make you do **** , start taking responsibility for your own actions ........ Dont blame me cause you chose to insult twiggy ........


I decided that responding in that way made me no better than you, so I am doing my best to discuss issues, even when people like you, LABF and some others simply through insult after insult. want some cheese with that whine ?

Have I mentioned media bias? Yea, I think the last time was two months ago. It's a fact, it doesn't have to be constantly rehashed. Oh Bull****

However, you completely disregarded Palidin's (the OP) request not to turn this into a name calling pile of crap, but instead to discuss issues. Look **** stick , Palin is a ****ing flight attendant , nothing more and small dicked pricks like you think she can run this country ........ giving that , yo uwant ot be taken serious ? fuuuuuuuck you ......

At HIS request, I listed what many people consider extreme liberal issues. If you don't agree with my position, then by all means let's discuss it. and yo uwere way off , but discussing **** with you doesnt pan out .....

If all you want to do is attack me, I hope it brings some joy to your life. I'm ok either way.

Oh quit with the poor me , I am abused bull**** , I attack everyone dip **** ....

[tnedator]

I didnt make you do **** , start taking responsibility for your own actions ........ Dont blame me cause you chose to insult twiggy ........

I do take responsibility. I shouldn't have responded in kind, and then talked to other people that way. Ironically, it was LABF that called me on talking to him the way you and I were berating each other, and I realized that he was right, I was wrong for calling him a ****tard and other choice words.

want some cheese with that whine ?

Oh Bull****

I'm actually allergic to milk protein, so cheese is not an option for me, but I do like a nice Pinot Noir...

Look **** stick , Palin is a ****ing flight attendant , nothing more and small dicked pricks like you think she can run this country ........ giving that , yo uwant ot be taken serious ? fuuuuuuuck you ......

Ok, again the subject was extreme liberal views, not Palin or stewardesses.

As to your offer of sexual intercouse, I think I am going to have to pass, I don't swing both ways.

and yo uwere way off , but discussing **** with you doesnt pan out .....

Maybe if you 'try' discussing you'll change your prejudiced position.

Oh quit with the poor me , I am abused bull**** , I attack everyone dip **** ....

Nope, not abused. I have just decided that just because some people constantly revert to childish name calling, doesn't mean I should stoop to the same level.

I don't feel abused, or I would run away and hide. I'm perfectly willing to post my POVs, and if a few of you feel the only option is to attack me, rather than discuss, then fine, it's not my loss.

[Spider]

I do take responsibility. I shouldn't have responded in kind, and then talked to other people that way. Ironically, it was LABF that called me on talking to him the way you and I were berating each other, and I realized that he was right, I was wrong for calling him a ****tard and other choice words. you twit , you blamed me for pulling you in to insulting , now I am not your preacher , i really dont want to hear about your confessions or enlightenment moments ............



I'm actually allergic to milk protein, so cheese is not an option for me, but I do like a nice Pinot Noir... thats nice to know ......



Ok, again the subject was extreme liberal views, not Palin or stewardesses. Doesnt really matter now does it twiggy ? you are still wrong on both issues .......

As to your offer of sexual intercouse, I think I am going to have to pass, I don't swing both ways. ROFL! someone from Arkansas being picky ........ oh wait , I guess you since you had a moment of Zen brought on by LABF , you have reformed .......



Maybe if you 'try' discussing you'll change your prejudiced position. in other words , Spider if you start believing my bull**** I sling , perhaps you will see things my way ........Yeah hold your breath on that one



Nope, not abused. I have just decided that just because some people constantly revert to childish name calling, doesn't mean I should stoop to the same level. too bad you cant ban here hey .......

I don't feel abused, or I would run away and hide. I'm perfectly willing to post my POVs, and if a few of you feel the only option is to attack me, rather than discuss, then fine, it's not my loss.
Oh bull**** , or you wouldnt have started lecturing in the first post on this page .........

[Miss I.]

Okay so can someone bring me to date on the current status of this thread, what was it discussing? I tried to read through the last page, but all I can figure out is that people are name calling, which I suppose is kind of a reflection of the election stuff, but really what was this discussing: Liberal v Conservative strategies on issues?

On a less sober note: here's an oldie but goodie from Jon Stewart on the Democrats.
<embed FlashVars='videoId=179253' src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

[El Guapo]

eh, last go around the polls showed the morning of the election that kerry had the presidency hook, line and sinker. Look what happened. Bring it.

[Miss I.]

eh, last go around the polls showed the morning of the election that kerry had the presidency hook, line and sinker. Look what happened. Bring it.

Frankly, it's all a crapshoot. I mean, polls are mostly BS and it is all who shows up and votes. I will say this though, I did early voting today at 10AM and there were 75 people in line and it kept filling up behind me. It took about 45 minutes of waiting in line to get to vote. I have never had to wait to vote before. So it should be interesting either way.

[Paladin]

This was a very good thread until something happened to it. Can't really say where it happened, but I was trying to foster some decent discussion on the whole "You're a liberal" or "You're a conservative" childish junk we read now and then.

To be honest, I read the proffered "beliefs" of an extreme liberal offered by tnedator, and I did not myself get to the point of refuting them. Don't have to. We can see that none of those "beliefs" are held by all people, and few hold those positions to the extreme degree. By and large, I think Americans are far more reasonable than that, at least the informed ones are. (We have outliers on both sides.)

What are the beliefs held by extreme conservatives? What would identify a person as an extreme conservative. One could almost say "an irrational fear of anyone espousing a "liberal viewpoint" on any subject. That would be incorrect, though, because not all conservative hold the extreme conservative beliefs at any one time on any one subject.

So. We have identified several main issues that our culture/society/nation needs to address. But I want to see if there is a compromise position - a consensus - that can address those issues.

To review:

It sounds to me that we have a potential proposal. Solve the Energy needs, and move to demand side economics, buttress the Middle Class economically and create jobs that cannot be outsourced.


Sorry I left and did not manage the thread better.....

[Rohirrim]

What this thread needs is coeds in the shower:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r8tXjJL3xcM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r8tXjJL3xcM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Paladin]

Do those people ever throw their bones out of joints when they dance like that?

[Miss I.]

Sorry I left and did not manage the thread better.....

Dude, we are adults, you should not have to manage anything. I was just curious.

As far as the liberal v conservative, I could pull out the wikpedia again, but it's not really the point.

I agree with you (and I am completely paraphrasing here, so correct me if I am wrong) that most people are not extreme liberal or conservative. To me it tends to be an issue by issue thing. I am more socially liberally generally, but fiscally conservative. I believe in states right v large federal government, but I don't believe that means the Federal government shouldn't have some more oversight in certain areas (regulating oil speculation, etc). I don't agree with giving up my personal freedoms (I object vociferously to the Patriot Act's allowing for random wire tapping, etc) to pretend I am safer.

I also don't like to narrow things down to simplistic names, but I think I may have already said that in this thread or another one.

That's my opinion at any rate and we all know what they say about opinions.

[Spider]

What this thread needs is coeds in the shower:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r8tXjJL3xcM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r8tXjJL3xcM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

you ass .First time I have been rick rolled ........ I have dodged all the others

[Miss I.]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;2142544]What this thread needs is coeds in the shower:
QUOTE]

Well that is one way to get the youth vote and run a clean campaign at the same time.

[Spider]

Dude, we are adults, you should not have to manage anything. I was just curious.

As far as the liberal v conservative, I could pull out the wikpedia again, but it's not really the point.

I agree with you (and I am completely paraphrasing here, so correct me if I am wrong) that most people are not extreme liberal or conservative. To me it tends to be an issue by issue thing. I am more socially liberally generally, but fiscally conservative. I believe in states right v large federal government, but I don't believe that means the Federal government shouldn't have some more oversight in certain areas (regulating oil speculation, etc). I don't agree with giving up my personal freedoms (I object vociferously to the Patriot Act's allowing for random wire tapping, etc) to pretend I am safer.

I also don't like to narrow things down to simplistic names, but I think I may have already said that in this thread or another one.

That's my opinion at any rate and we all know what they say about opinions.

Nahhhhhhh , what it boils down to is image , reps project themselfs as down to earth god fearing hard working salt of the earth and see the left as long haired hippie types on a commune smoking pot , fee love singing in harmony, nt having any morals or direction in life , the left sees the right as a bunch of azzholes

[Miss I.]

you ass .First time I have been rick rolled ........ I have dodged all the others

Well Spider, you should've known it wouldn't be an actual naked chick in a shower, but I have one for you now if you want.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zLJ2qv_Wcug&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zLJ2qv_Wcug&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Spider]

Well Spider, you should've known it wouldn't be an actual naked chick in a shower, but I have one for you now if you want.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zLJ2qv_Wcug&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zLJ2qv_Wcug&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I didnt expect naked women , I expected a couple of hot coeds messing around actin sexy ......and no i am not clicking on your you tube thing ......... Once rick rolled is enough

[Miss I.]

Nahhhhhhh , what it boils down to is image , reps project themselfs as down to earth god fearing hard working salt of the earth and see the left as long haired hippie types on a commune smoking pot , fee love singing in harmony, nt having any morals or direction in life , the left sees the right as a bunch of azzholes

What? I am a long haired hippie type living on free love and singing (off key) and what is a moral? Am I really not supposed to hit everything? Dang it.

All smartaZZery aside, I think that is still lumping. I mean, yeah some extreme right assumes the extreme left that way and vice versa, but most people don't fall on either extreme pole nor do they usually presume those things about opposing view points. If they do, they are dumbazzes and I really can't deal with that without the pot and alcohol and free love.

[Miss I.]

I didnt expect naked women , I expected a couple of hot coeds messing around actin sexy ......and no i am not clicking on your you tube thing ......... Once rick rolled is enough

Oh Spider I wouldn't do that to you. It really is just a clip of Geraldine Ferraro showering...oh wait, no it really is the shower scene from the Hitchcock Classic Psycho.

[Spider]

What? I am a long haired hippie type living on free love and singing (off key) and what is a moral? Am I really not supposed to hit everything? Dang it.

All smartaZZery aside, I think that is still lumping. I mean, yeah some extreme right assumes the extreme left that way and vice versa, but most people don't fall on either extreme pole nor do they usually presume those things about opposing view points. If they do, they are dumbazzes and I really can't deal with that without the pot and alcohol and free love.

we all lump people to a point ........ for example driving down the road , you see an old fashion house in lets say Germantown Ohio , you see a mcCain /Palin sign in their front yard ........you know damn well these people are not running around in the house naked singing Buddy Holly tunes .....where as you see a farm house with Obama / Bidden signs , and you notice all of the chickens are missing .........

[Paladin]

.....where as you see a farm house with Obama / Bidden signs , and you notice all of the chickens are missing .........


LOL!!!!

[Miss I.]

we all lump people to a point ........ for example driving down the road , you see an old fashion house in lets say Germantown Ohio , you see a mcCain /Palin sign in their front yard ........you know damn well these people are not running around in the house naked singing Buddy Holly tunes .....where as you see a farm house with Obama / Bidden signs , and you notice all of the chickens are missing .........

No, no that's not right. I think both houses have people running around the house naked, but it is really about 2 things, what direction they are running and yes the song they are singing. In the Republican house they are all naked, running to the right, with occasional swings to the left, singing America the Beautiful. In the Democrat's house they are all naked, singing Born in the USA and they aren't running, they are all swingers and it's a big love in. But again, I have a really hosed up imagination and perhaps I should take more drugs, not less.

[SJ Bronco]

Damn! Rick Roll'ed Again!!! U A-hole!

[Spider]

No, no that's not right. I think both houses have people running around the house naked, but it is really about 2 things, what direction they are running and yes the song they are singing. In the Republican house they are all naked, running to the right, with occasional swings to the left, singing America the Beautiful. In the Democrat's house they are all naked, singing Born in the USA and they aren't running, they are all swingers and it's a big love in. But again, I have a really hosed up imagination and perhaps I should take more drugs, not less.

I notice you left the Chickens off the list ......... mmmmmmmm

[Miss I.]

I notice you left the Chickens off the list ......... mmmmmmmm

Dude, I am not touching the chickens. I don't do poultry.

[Spider]

Dude, I am not touching the chickens. I don't do poultry.

..........So if the misses dressed up as ...nevermind

[SJ Bronco]

..........So if the misses dressed up as ...nevermind

I would love to see where that was going....:rofl:

[Miss I.]

I would love to see where that was going....:rofl:

I am guessing Twilight Zone, but all I can say is be afraid, be very afraid.

[tnedator]

Conservatives don't believe that EVERY liberal holds extreme views, but they do greatly fear the far left liberals, and their extreme views (like the ones I listed), and that when the liberals are in power, the far-left liberals have a much better chance to push through the legislature/change they have been talking about for years.

Is it an irrational fear? Hard to say, some would argue that most fear is irritiional.

As to what are the extreme right/conservative views. I am a Republican, and I have trouble telling these days. The party has been in dissarray for a decade or so. The GOP, and the right wing zealots like Rush and company, have spent so much time focusing on what the liberals are doing wrong, and what evil liberalism brings, that they have lost focus on defining their party.

We all know that in general, they are for lower taxes (including corportate), anti-abortion and 2nd amendment rights (fighting most if not all gun control, even some legitimate gun control), but beyond that, it's pretty hard to get a sense of what today's extreme conservative stands for.

Since Newts contract with America (and I am not saying it was good or bad), the Republican party has spent more time telling us what is bad about the democratic party, then what is good about the Republican party -- what the 21st century Republican stands for.

I think the number one extreme conservative ideal, is that anything the liberals support is bad. Makes for good talk radio fodder, but not a great rallying point for center leaning Republicans.

Yes, they talk small government, but their actions don't back it up. Outside of the abortion and gay marriage stances, the whole family values thing seems to have petered out.

So, while the liberals have many positions that they promote very well, and while their are some extreme liberal positions that frighten many conservatives (and the right wing talk radio and other pundits play on that fear), it is hard to really get a sense of what today's conservatives stand for.

For me, I get pissed off at artificially raising food prices, because of an arbitrary requirement to produce x amount of ethanol/biodiesel, then subisidizing it, so that corn and soybean prices are elevated and everything from baby formula to eggs and meat become more expensive as a result.

I get pissed when I see those subidaries going to venezuela with their splash and dash runs to Europe that include a stop to get a small amount of American diesel, and $9 million dollars or so in subsidaries, because of loopholes in said subsidies.

I get pissed off at the notion that raising taxes on businesses and raising capital gains taxes can be seen as a sound way to promote job growth or investment in the markets, rather than having money moved to tax sheltered investments.

However, as to what the party stands for these days, I really don't have a clue.

[Bronco Bob]

eh, last go around the polls showed the morning of the election that kerry had the presidency hook, line and sinker. Look what happened. Bring it.

Only if you believed the Fox News poll, which had Kerry up by two.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

CBS News had Bush up by 2
Pew Research had Bush up by 3
GW/Battleground had Bush up by 4
Newsweek had Bush up by 6

[Spider]

I am guessing Twilight Zone, but all I can say is be afraid, be very afraid.

I had no idea you were a member of the opposite sex ........ my bad

[Bronco Bob]

Frankly, it's all a crapshoot. I mean, polls are mostly BS and it is all who shows up and votes. I will say this though, I did early voting today at 10AM and there were 75 people in line and it kept filling up behind me. It took about 45 minutes of waiting in line to get to vote. I have never had to wait to vote before. So it should be interesting either way.

Not necessarily. Out of 14 polls taken just before the 2004 election,
all but two had Bush tied or ahead. And of the two polls that had
Kerry ahead, one had Kerry ahead by 2 and the other had Kerry ahead
by 1. If you take the Real Clear Politics average, they had Bush ahead
by 1.5 points.

Bush won the election by 1.5 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush won the election by 1.5 points.



With a lot of help from his friends at Diebold and the OH Secretary of State's office.

[Bronco Bob]

With a lot of help from his friends at Diebold and the OH Secretary of State's office.

None-the-less, the average of the polls predicted Bush would win
by 1.5 points and Bush won by 1.5 points. Add to that that of
these polls, only two had Kerry ahead. Fox News by 2, and Marist
by 1. Pew had Bush ahead by 6.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

None-the-less, the average of the polls predicted Bush would win
by 1.5 points and Bush won by 1.5 points. Add to that that of
these polls, only two had Kerry ahead. Fox News by 2, and Marist
by 1. Pew had Bush ahead by 6.

True that is.

[SJ Bronco]

None-the-less, the average of the polls predicted Bush would win
by 1.5 points and Bush won by 1.5 points. Add to that that of
these polls, only two had Kerry ahead. Fox News by 2, and Marist
by 1. Pew had Bush ahead by 6.

So whats the average polls today?

[Bronco Bob]

So whats the average polls today?

Real Clear Politics has Obama up by 7.3 points today.
Of the polls that include the 26th, they range from +5 to +10
for Obama. No poll taken since September 25th has had
McCain ahead.

[SJ Bronco]

Real Clear Politics has Obama up by 7.3 points today.
Of the polls that include the 26th, they range from +5 to +10
for Obama. No poll taken since September 25th has had
McCain ahead.

Hummmm, I wish i could trust the election to be fair, then I'd be excited here.

[rastaman]

eh, last go around the polls showed the morning of the election that kerry had the presidency hook, line and sinker. Look what happened. Bring it.

So you do agree that in 2004, the state of Ohio was stolen! in favor of Bush and his band of thieving Republicans.

Question you need to ask yourself, that despite of all the Republican Fatigue sweeping across America, will Republican operatives be foolish enough to steal another election, like what took place in 2000 and 2004!!!!

The magnitude of voter irregularites in 2000 and 2004 were a mathamatical impossibility, yet somehow neither of these phenomenons were questioned or challenged.

Funny how exit polling had always been within the margin of error of predicting out come of presidential elections.....of course until 2004.

[Miss I.]

Not necessarily. Out of 14 polls taken just before the 2004 election,
all but two had Bush tied or ahead. And of the two polls that had
Kerry ahead, one had Kerry ahead by 2 and the other had Kerry ahead
by 1. If you take the Real Clear Politics average, they had Bush ahead
by 1.5 points.

Bush won the election by 1.5 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

Thus, the word mostly. But I will own up and say that was a markedly impressive result. However, my issue with a lot of polls, not all, is that the questions are quite often remarkedly skewed to get the results people want to see. Is that the case in these polls, hard to say, since I have never seen the questions. But it sounds like they may have actually had a fairly reasonably balanced one in those cases.

[Miss I.]

I had no idea you were a member of the opposite sex ........ my bad

Spider, my gender is not important. Besides I was sneaky and put a picture of Jon Stewart as my Avatar (but that's cuz I loooove him, lol). Maybe I need to put something girly on it so I can warn people estrogen is in the room. Or some kind of girly signature. Either way Spider, it doesn't matter. You can say whatever you want to me, I am not exactly shy about giving my opinion or my own disturbing views on things. I just dont usually mention my gender, except in jokes, because last time I got a storm of "post pictures, what do you look like, I bet you have a hairy chest (Thank you Casino Royal)" and stuff of that nature.

At any rate I really like talking football, politics and being a smarta%% so I really like these threads and this board. Please continue or I will have to change my name to Butch and speak with a burlier voice.

[Spider]

Spider, my gender is not important. Besides I was sneaky and put a picture of Jon Stewart as my Avatar (but that's cuz I loooove him, lol). Maybe I need to put something girly on it so I can warn people estrogen is in the room. Or some kind of girly signature. Either way Spider, it doesn't matter. You can say whatever you want to me, I am not exactly shy about giving my opinion or my own disturbing views on things. I just dont usually mention my gender, except in jokes, because last time I got a storm of "post pictures, what do you look like, I bet you have a hairy chest (Thank you Casino Royal)" and stuff of that nature.

At any rate I really like talking football, politics and being a smarta%% so I really like these threads and this board. Please continue or I will have to change my name to Butch and speak with a burlier voice.

...........Well then .............. post some pics of your hairy chest ;D

[Miss I.]

...........Well then .............. post some pics of your hairy chest ;D

You are so demented.

%%%This thread hijack brought to you buy Spider and Ginita, two demented Broncos fans. We now return you to your regularly scheduled political discussion %%%%

[Spider]

You are so demented.

%%%This thread hijack brought to you buy Spider and Ginita, two demented Broncos fans. We now return you to your regularly scheduled political discussion %%%%

;D

[tnedator]

I am not looking for political baiting, here.

Yea, speaking of threadjacking.

Somehow the OP's request was just completely blown off. Sad, really.

[Paladin]

I had no idea you were a member of the opposite sex ........ my bad

Not necessarily. Depends on which sex you are...

[Paladin]

Yea, speaking of threadjacking.

Somehow the OP's request was just completely blown off. Sad, really.

Yeah it was a damm good thread for a long time, really. But I figured the closer the election gets, the more fatigue people feel and so the discussions take on more foolishness. I actually did learn a several things on this thread, and I thought there was some very good exchanges. The fact is, as I summarized elsewhere, there is a consensus on which issues needed to be addressed soon. There is some difference of opinion on how to get those issues resolved, but the point is that agreement on the issues-to-be-addressed can lead to reasonable discussion (Committee Chairmanship 101). So, in four days or so, we will have new parameters to add to the discussions.

[tnedator]

Yeah it was a damm good thread for a long time, really. But I figured the closer the election gets, the more fatigue people feel and so the discussions take on more foolishness. I actually did learn a several things on this thread, and I thought there was some very good exchanges. The fact is, as I summarized elsewhere, there is a consensus on which issues needed to be addressed soon. There is some difference of opinion on how to get those issues resolved, but the point is that agreement on the issues-to-be-addressed can lead to reasonable discussion (Committee Chairmanship 101). So, in four days or so, we will have new parameters to add to the discussions.

Actually, you did an awesome job of keeping things on track for a while, but unfortunately the WPR version of the Gang of Three joined in, and with them, discussion isn't an option, just threadjacking and flaming.

Anyway, for a while, it was a great thread with some great discussion. Good job.

[Spider]

Oh great he is back and crying some more ...........

[Miss I.]

Yeah it was a damm good thread for a long time, really. But I figured the closer the election gets, the more fatigue people feel and so the discussions take on more foolishness. I actually did learn a several things on this thread, and I thought there was some very good exchanges. The fact is, as I summarized elsewhere, there is a consensus on which issues needed to be addressed soon. There is some difference of opinion on how to get those issues resolved, but the point is that agreement on the issues-to-be-addressed can lead to reasonable discussion (Committee Chairmanship 101). So, in four days or so, we will have new parameters to add to the discussions.

It was a good thread and I also enjoyed the coversation. I did not mean to take it off track, honestly. I hope I can participate in further discussion without it becoming hostile or taken off track. I have already voted, but reading this thread and others has given me additional items to think about and watch over coming months.