Originally Posted by 68great
And did not try to return us to the "Gilded Age" (of the 1870's through 1890's) of avarice, prejudice, plutocratic power and social injustice.

drunkoski;505378 said:

---

please explain specifically how doing this would benefit the republican party and the people funding it?

---

Are you REALLY that stupid? Or are you just very dishonest?

AunBear89;505748 said:

---

Originally Posted by 68great
And did not try to return us to the "Gilded Age" (of the 1870's through 1890's) of avarice, prejudice, plutocratic power and social injustice.



Are you REALLY that stupid? Or are you just very dishonest?

---

Let's be nice, now.....we are dealing with an open minded conservative here.

:p

drunkoski;505670 said:

---

of course not. i'm saying that obama is in the left of HIS OWN PARTY which makes him far left of the majority of americans. nader is so far left he'd fall of the end of california.

---

A couple people earlier in this thread posted 10+ issues about which progressives/liberals think Obama is farther right than his campaign would have suggested. what's your list of issues on which he's further left than what he campaigned on, or than most democrats?

drunkoski;505759 said:

---

who is saying he is farther left than he campaigned? his support of the unions is far left (no chance in hell clinton gives GM to the unions). his lionization of corporations is far left. his pork spending in the stimilus was far left. he increase in food stamp assistance is far left. his original universal healthcare bill was far left. as for the list of progressive ideas. i do not agree with it as i imagine you will not agree with my examples.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos.html

Lawmakers are given a score from 0 to 100. Zero marks a member of Congress in absolute opposition to the most liberal or conservative member of their affiliated party. One hundred percent says that member is in lockstep. For example, a Democratic House member with an 82.5 liberal score is more liberal than 82.5 percent of the House. A Republican senator with a 36.2 conservative score is more conservative than just over one-third of the Senate.

Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate

---

Obama may have been a liberal senator from Illinois but he has since moved to the center....maybe even slightly to the right of center, since he has become president. This has been necessary because he has to kowtow to the conservatives in his party and the republicans in order to get anything done. This has ****ed off many liberals in the meantime. That's politics in America. You have to govern from the middle. Bush ****ed off the conservatives in his party but eventually, they all fell into line like good republicans do. I'm sure the left wing of the democratic party will do the same.

drunkoski;505670 said:

---

i love this theory that obama has (and i guess others agree with) that the reason why people aren't on board with him is because he hasn't explained it properly. i.e. you are all stupid.

if 1/3 of the country thinks he is a muslim and hates him for the color of his skin how the hell did he get elected by a landslide? that's DAMN impressive.

of course not. i'm saying that obama is in the left of HIS OWN PARTY which makes him far left of the majority of americans. nader is so far left he'd fall of the end of california.

---

If 1/3 of the electorate votes against you in a Presidential election, but you get the other 2/3, you've won an epic landslide.

Saw this post on another site(patrick.net) and it sums up, imo, nicely our current political landscape:
[FONT="Times New Roman"]
When we survey the conservative view — the racism, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, climate and evolution skepticism, priapism for the military, voodoo economics, etc — it’s not so much a question of reality, but an effort to substitute their anti-reality, which is a form of dadaism really.

By making us deal with their bull****, we are blocked from advancing our own aims. The more bull**** they create, the more we are blocked.

Conservatives believe the best defense is a good offense.

This is kinda how the soviets abused their citizenry, and also what Orwell picked up on, how ideologues can control the reality that matters by getting people to willingly deny the factual reality.

Who wants “reality” when bull**** is so much more comforting?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx

Just 1 in 6 Americans don’t buy the bull****, by that poll.[/FONT]

I understand that "old school" conservatives like DO reject alot current conservative nonsense. Nonetheless, it comes in handy when both pandering for votes and changing the topic.

The Dems for all their flaws -- and they have a lot of them -- have never been able to pull this level of bs off.

i'm gonna go ahead and assume without reading all 22 pages of this thread that at least one person will enjoy these as much as i did:

Quote:

---

Bin Laden was unarmed. Now he's unfaced too.

---

Quote:

---

New popular bar drink- The Osama: two shots and a splash of water

---

I'm not sorry at all if anyone is offended.

Too late, you offend me....no, not your post...just you.....ehehheeeeee...
but you are a man......

drunkoski;505759 said:

---

who is saying he is farther left than he campaigned? his support of the unions is far left (no chance in hell clinton gives GM to the unions). his lionization of corporations is far left. his pork spending in the stimilus was far left. he increase in food stamp assistance is far left. his original universal healthcare bill was far left. as for the list of progressive ideas. i do not agree with it as i imagine you will not agree with my examples.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos.html

Lawmakers are given a score from 0 to 100. Zero marks a member of Congress in absolute opposition to the most liberal or conservative member of their affiliated party. One hundred percent says that member is in lockstep. For example, a Democratic House member with an 82.5 liberal score is more liberal than 82.5 percent of the House. A Republican senator with a 36.2 conservative score is more conservative than just over one-third of the Senate.

Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate

---

Sorry, but just about that entire issues list you cited is par for the course for the Democrats, and has been for a long time. Also, you left out this quote from the Washington Post article:

"While it's somewhat irrelevant to look at Obama's lifetime liberal rating since he only has two years under his congressional belt, the long view provides interesting context for Clinton, Dodd and Biden."

Finally, when you say "far left", you need to qualify that you are only referring to relative standing within his party, because, as I hinted in another post, there are individuals and parties outside of the Democrat party that are much farther left.

drunkoski;505847 said:

---

i stopped reading after racism. . .

---

Of course you did.

Couldn't find anyone to help you sound it out?

drunkoski;505759 said:

---

who is saying he is farther left than he campaigned? his support of the unions is far left (no chance in hell clinton gives GM to the unions). his lionization of corporations is far left. his pork spending in the stimilus was far left. he increase in food stamp assistance is far left. his original universal healthcare bill was far left. as for the list of progressive ideas. i do not agree with it as i imagine you will not agree with my examples.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos.html

Lawmakers are given a score from 0 to 100. Zero marks a member of Congress in absolute opposition to the most liberal or conservative member of their affiliated party. One hundred percent says that member is in lockstep. For example, a Democratic House member with an 82.5 liberal score is more liberal than 82.5 percent of the House. A Republican senator with a 36.2 conservative score is more conservative than just over one-third of the Senate.

Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate

---

I don't think you mean "lionization" of corporations; maybe demonization?

So your point is that Obama is way to the left of all those people who voted for him knowing full well about that liberal voting record? That doesn't make sense.

BearyWhite;505953 said:

---

So your point is that Obama is way to the left of all those people who voted for him knowing full well about that liberal voting record? That doesn't make sense.

---

No, it's because voters actually hate liberal policies, but they are stupid and were fooled by the fact that he's good-looking and a great speaker . . . except during the mid-terms, when they were perfectly informed, knew exactly what they were doing, and voted out Democratic congressmen because of the substance of Obama's policies.

I think that covers it.

What is Obama doing in this picture? Did he think this was Call of Duty? Was he frustrated that he really couldn't control the players?

Hey how many Nobel Peace Prize winners do you know that are assassinating guys in Pakistan?

sycasey;505979 said:

---

No, it's because voters actually hate liberal policies, but they are stupid and were fooled by the fact that he's good-looking and a great speaker . . . except during the mid-terms, when they were perfectly informed, knew exactly what they were doing, and voted out Democratic congressmen because of the substance of Obama's policies.

I think that covers it.

---

LOL! When they vote liberal, then they were "fooled." When they vote conservative, then they were "perfectly informed."

Biased much? If there's one person who's fooled in this room I can introduce you to him. Just step right here in front of the mirror...

sycasey;505979 said:

---

No, it's because voters actually hate liberal policies, but they are stupid and were fooled by the fact that he's good-looking and a great speaker . . . except during the mid-terms, when they were perfectly informed, knew exactly what they were doing, and voted out Democratic congressmen because of the substance of Obama's policies.

I think that covers it.

---

GWB was way hotter IMO. Obama is a 6, maybe a Berkeley 7.

freshfunk;505989 said:

---

LOL! When they vote liberal, then they were "fooled." When they vote conservative, then they were "perfectly informed."

Biased much? If there's one person who's fooled in this room I can introduce you to him. Just step right here in front of the mirror...

---

I think you just fell into the . . .

sycasey;505996 said:

---

I think you just fell into the . . .

---

There's no sarcasm in politics!

drunkoski;506128 said:

---

A percentage of voters certainly like liberal policies. the majority do not. the fact that obama is the first truly liberal president in 30 years should be proof enough no?

---

No.

drunkoski;506203 said:

---

at page 9 i think we are 5 pages at least past the point where someone should have posted "agree to disagree" about everything except loving Cal.

---

Hey, how about that Larry Scott? :woohoo

Just stumbled onto this thread. Let's keep it going, yeah? GMP claimed in some thread about excessive celebrations that there was a 30 page thread on this subject. 7 more pages to go.

No matter what any of you go on to do with your lives, you will ALWAYS have more in common with Bin Laden than differences.

SoCalBear323;506231 said:

---

No matter what any of you go on to do with your lives, you will ALWAYS have more in common with Bin Laden than differences.

---

Osama is a Cal football fan?

Supposedly he's an Arsenal football fan (or I should say, he was).

SoCalBear323;506231 said:

---

No matter what any of you go on to do with your lives, you will ALWAYS have more in common with Bin Laden than differences.

---

Osama liked to wear red underwear!?

SoCalBear323;506231 said:

---

No matter what any of you go on to do with your lives, you will ALWAYS have more in common with Bin Laden than differences.

---

DNA sequence, for one.

drunkoski;506128 said:

---

A percentage of voters certainly like liberal policies. the majority do not. the fact that obama is the first truly liberal president in 30 years should be proof enough no? and no i never implied they were perfectly informed during the midterms, but let's face it obviously obama did SOMETHING that turned off the voters no?

---

That's just plain false. Liberal programs always poll really well -- Medicare, Social Security, the individual components of healthcare reform, all that stuff. Remember that study that showed that Kerry voters understood his positions a lot more than Bush voters? Upon reelection Bush misread his mandate and campaigned to get rid of Social Security, and voters revolted. Same way with Medicare currently, which the GOP in the house voted to get rid of (sorry, 'restructure'); they've now decided to give up that initiative.

drunkoski;506127 said:

---

no one cared. they hated bush and wanted someone completely different. how do you think arnold became our governor?

---

You're minimizing the depths to which Bush had sunk the Republican brand. They didn't want someone different, they wanted a Democrat. That's a lot of the reason that the Tea Party is so strong now -- GOP loyalists (dick armey, for one) realized they needed a way to make GOP concepts popular without the GOP espousing them, so they encouraged and funded various tea party groups. Have you noticed that the affiliation "tea party" has yet to appear on a ballot?

This poll seems to suggest liberals are a minority of Americans... not terribly surprising. This poll suggests that a plurality of people would repeal the health care reform package (generally considered a liberal program, even if it isn't single payer). If I had to guess where the electorate sits on the political spectrum, it'd be fiscally conservative, and left-of-center socially.

I think its pretty clear that Obama misread his mandate... for most Americans, "Change" just meant change the man, not the direction. People wanted a president who came across as intelligent, was respected internationally, and who preached bipartisanship... everything Bush failed to achieve. Obama pressed this advantage to push liberal legislation through congress, and naturally his popularity sank.

tbischel;506291 said:

---

This poll seems to suggest liberals are a minority of Americans... not terribly surprising. This poll suggests that a plurality of people would repeal the health care reform package (generally considered a liberal program, even if it isn't single payer). If I had to guess where the electorate sits on the political spectrum, it'd be fiscally conservative, and left-of-center socially.

I think its pretty clear that Obama misread his mandate... for most Americans, "Change" just meant change the man, not the direction. People wanted a president who came across as intelligent, was respected internationally, and who preached bipartisanship... everything Bush failed to achieve. Obama pressed this advantage to push liberal legislation through congress, and naturally his popularity sank.

---

To be fair most American elections are not about ideology, people are interested in results not labels. Unfortunately the political parties in this country never learn that-and why should they: you never want to squander a chance to advance your agenda. Obama won because the economy was in the toilet and voters in about a dozen swing states wanted a change. The "mandate" was fix the economy not universal health care. The republicans won the recent election because the economy is still in the toilet and government was seen as wasteful and not doing enough to fix things. The Republicans, however, were not given a mandate to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid and mess with abortion. Paul Ryan is a blessing for the Democrats. And so it goes.

GB54;506299 said:

---

To be fair most American elections are not about ideology, people are interested in results not labels. Unfortunately the political parties in this country never learn that-and why should they: you never want to squander a chance to advance your agenda. Obama won because the economy was in the toilet and voters in about a dozen swing states wanted a change. The "mandate" was fix the economy not universal health care. The republicans won the recent election because the economy is still in the toilet and government was seen as wasteful and not doing enough to fix things. The Republicans, however, were not given a mandate to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid and mess with abortion. Paul Ryan is a blessing for the Democrats. And so it goes.

---

I don't know the numbers but I'd bet 70-75% of the electorate are into ideology with half going to the right and the other half going to the left. The remaining 25-30% in the middle are the people interested in results and will vote for the party/candidate that they feel can accomplish the results they seek. Those into ideology would very rarely cross over to the other side regardless of whether they think a candidate from an opposing party is better qualified.

GB54;506299 said:

---

The "mandate" was fix the economy not universal health care.

---

Though to some extent our health care system is one of the problems with the economy.

sycasey;506325 said:

---

Though to some extent our health care system is one of the problems with the economy.

---

The budget certainly. Not sure about the economy. All that wasted money must benefit someone.

I'd characterize it more as:

45% don't know squat and don't vote, choosing to just to complain
5% are well informed and don't vote because they think the politicians all suck
30% made a gut decision years ago based on almost no information that they were either left or right (split pretty much equally) and will never change
5% are genuinely right or left based on good analysis and information, and as the analysis and information rarely changes, they rarely change.
2% vote based on a well informed judgment of who they think will provide the best results
13% are too stupid to have gotten so far as to develop an ideology and vote based on who wins the media cycles or who has the best sound bites like our government is some great reality show.

He who takes the last 13% wins.

And 100% of us can't figure out a way to universally cheer an enemy of the US being defeated. I swear if WWII ended today we'd have some people denying it was over, some people denying it ever happened, some people debating the tactics we used to win, some people wondering whether we should be celebrating, and some people arguing over whether Herbert Hoover deserved some of the credit for defeating Hitler.

(oh, and for anyone who takes exception to my characterization of the voting and nonvoting public here, don't worry - YOU are in the 12% I have characterized as well informed. )