1. #1
    durito
    escarabajo negro
    durito's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-03-06
    Posts: 13,182

    It's Time (The Economist Presidential Enodorsement)

    The presidential election
    It's time

    Oct 30th 2008
    From The Economist print edition

    America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

    IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

    For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
    Thinking about 2009 and 2017

    The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

    Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

    At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

    The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
    If only the real John McCain had been running

    That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

    Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

    The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

    Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

    Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

    So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

    There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

    Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

    It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

    Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
    He has earned it

    So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

  2. #2
    durito
    escarabajo negro
    durito's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-03-06
    Posts: 13,182

    Can someone fix the title to be spelled correctly.

  3. #3
    JBC77
    JBC77's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-23-07
    Posts: 3,816
    Betpoints: 233

    Good article durito.

  4. #4
    tacomax
    SBR Problem Poster 2007-08
    tacomax's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-10-05
    Posts: 9,621

    Quote Originally Posted by durito View Post
    Can someone fix the title to be spelled correctly.
    You're relying on the mods being able to spell.

    SBR Founder Join Date: 8/10/2005


  5. #5
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Barack Obama's Admission of His Intention to Dupe the Gullible That he is a Centrist

    Then he intends to "purge" moderates after getting sufficient power. This is HIS words:

    Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party

    by Barack Obama

    Fri Sep 30, 2005

    I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor during the debate on John Roberts’ nomination. I don’t get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

    Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it’s precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

    There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

    According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

    I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

    It’s this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don’t think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn’t swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

    A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

    I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster — a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations — blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

    In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn’t become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design.

    The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn’t somehow transformed into a “war supporter” - as I’ve heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn’t called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn’t become anti-choice because he or she isn’t absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn’t become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn’t become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

    Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation’s fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist’s threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

    I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, “true” progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive “checklist,” then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

    Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won’t be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won’t go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won’t change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won’t have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won’t have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won’t have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

    The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives’ job. After all, it’s easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it’s harder to craft a foreign policy that’s tough and smart. It’s easy to dismantle government safety nets; it’s harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It’s easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it’s harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that’s our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

    Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more “centrist.” In fact, I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

    Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of “framing,” although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It’s a matter of actually having faith in the American people’s ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

    Finally, I am not arguing that we “unilaterally disarm” in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

    My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of “disagreeing without being disagreeable,” and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone’s greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

    In that spirit, let me end by saying I don’t pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.

  6. #6
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    How does that say anything about purging moderates? In fact, it says quite the contrary. Did you actually read the whole article? Amazing.

    It's actually a very impressive line of thinking. An even more solidifying reason to cast my vote for Obama.

  7. #7
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    How does that say anything about purging moderates? In fact, it says quite the contrary. Did you actually read the whole article? Amazing.

    It's actually a very impressive line of thinking. An even more solidifying reason to cast my vote for Obama.
    I guess you missed this part:

    In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

  8. #8
    durito
    escarabajo negro
    durito's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-03-06
    Posts: 13,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair View Post
    I guess you missed this part:

    In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
    Sounds great to me.

  9. #9
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by durito View Post
    Sounds great to me.
    What do you think a more "progressive agenda" is and why would you want it?

  10. #10
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair View Post
    I guess you missed this part:

    In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
    I see you omitted the beginning of the paragraph. Keep taking things out of context or teach yourself how to comprehend the english language. He was discussing the opinions of some Democrats, those on the blog, etc. Get a clue.

  11. #11
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    I see you omitted the beginning of the paragraph. Keep taking things out of context or teach yourself how to comprehend the english language. He was discussing the opinions of some Democrats, those on the blog, etc. Get a clue.
    Are you this gullible? Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth and he parses more than Clinton. What do you think he means by Democrats who "appease the right wing"? And the first part of the paragraph is complete BS. Bush campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider," and a "compassionate conservative." The so called extremists looking for red meat were mostly disgusted with him.

    Keep taking things out of context or teach yourself how to comprehend the english language.

    I don't normally harp on such things, but if you are going to tell somebody else they "need to comprehend the English language," you might start by realizing that you look pretty foolish when you do so and don't even realize that "English" should be capitalized.

  12. #12
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    I'm posting from my iPhone right now, dolt. My apologies for not paying attention to all capitalization standards. That's the best you've got, huh? And, BTW, capitalization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with comprehension. Enjoy your ignorance.

  13. #13
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    I'm posting from my iPhone right now, dolt. My apologies for not paying attention to all capitalization standards. That's the best you've got, huh? And, BTW, capitalization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with comprehension. Enjoy your ignorance.
    Uh, no, that's not all I had, but it seems all you are willing or able to to comment on.

    Hey, I knew it was probably a typo, but if I was going to comment in any manner on another's language abilities, I would first make sure my wording in doing so was impeccable.

  14. #14
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    I only responded to that because the rest of your response is contrived partisan BS that doesn't address the actual blog in discussion. Conversation over. Not worth my time.

  15. #15
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    I only responded to that because the rest of your response is contrived partisan BS that doesn't address the actual blog in discussion. Conversation over. Not worth my time.
    No it wasn't. Did not Bush campaign as a "uniter, not a divider," and as a "compassionate conservative"? That kind of "red meat" disgusted his extremist base. Exactly who are these Democrats who are appeasing Republicans? And what does he mean by a "progressive agenda." None of you moonbats ever address that.

    Conversation over. Not worth my time

    Translation: You know you are full of BS.

    Have a good night

  16. #16
    TheLock
    TheLock's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-06-08
    Posts: 10,171
    Betpoints: 258

    Guys

    Go vote for the candidate that best suits you and leave it at that.

    This back and forth stuff is terminally boring and a waste of time. None of you will sway anyone to "your" side.

    Throw the iPod on and go for a nice walk or relax and watch the game.

  17. #17
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    And that has what, AGAIN, to do with this blog and your assertion that it indicates ANY motivation to "purge moderates?" I'm not even a liberal. Hilarious. If you don't know what progressive politics is then perhaps you shouldn't be attempting to debate politics in general. That is Poli Sci 101. Although, I have my doubts that you even attended college.

  18. #18
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    And that has what, AGAIN, to do with this blog and your assertion that it indicates ANY motivation to "purge moderates?"

    You are are unwilling to acknowledge anything about Obama's demonstrated political history if you think that getting rid of those "appeasing Democrats" is not talk of getting rid of moderates. Or at least moderates who won't get in line with his agenda.


    I'm not even a liberal. Hilarious.


    I've been a conservative all my life, but... (heard it before)

    If you don't know what progressive politics is then perhaps you shouldn't be attempting to debate politics in general. That is Poli Sci 101. Although, I have my doubts that you even attended college.


    LOL. How old are you? You think Obama is using the term the way they may use it in a Poli Sci 101 class? Hint: He used it in this instance in gaining the support of the Daily KOS denizens.

    Other than the crap he has spewed during the campaign, what do you like about Obama? His entire history is one of being about far left beliefs.

  19. #19
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    ONCE AGAIN. That sentence about "appeasing Democrats" came from him discussing the attitudes that some Democratic advocates and membersof THAT blog had regarding Democratic political strategies. IT WASN'T HIS POSITION. LEARN TO READ.

  20. #20
    Tchocky
    Tchocky's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-14-06
    Posts: 2,372
    Betpoints: 1086

    It doesn't matter who the Economist endorses. McCain has Joe the Plumber.

  21. #21
    ryanXL977
    ryanXL977's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-24-08
    Posts: 20,615

    hey larry, whats conservative mean? tell me. does it mean made up wars and debt beyond the pale? does it mean intervening in a brain dead womans "life?"

  22. #22
    fiveteamer
    Sweet berry wine!!!
    fiveteamer's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-14-08
    Posts: 10,805

    ms, where's my pizza motherfvcker.

  23. #23
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    ONCE AGAIN. That sentence about "appeasing Democrats" came from him discussing the attitudes that some Democratic advocates and membersof THAT blog had regarding Democratic political strategies. IT WASN'T HIS POSITION. LEARN TO READ.
    You need to learn the difference between statements and strategy.

  24. #24
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    Strategies are expressed in statements and those statements pretty clearly spelled out some Democratic advocates' strategies. If you look to the next paragraph, Obama clearly refutes those strategic statements, saying "I think this perspective misreads the American people." You see, paragraphs in the English language are comprised of individual topics with a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence. When a paragraph is constructed, the supporting sentences are written to detail and emboss the topic sentence. As you can note, the topic sentence in the paragraph containing "appeasing Democrats" discusses the storyline "driving many advocacy groups and Democratic activists." Thus, the content following said topic sentence details that point. As much as I love to argue semantics with someone who cannot comprehend simple paragraph structures often taught on a third grade level, I am now choosing to retire from the conversation.

  25. #25
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    Strategies are expressed in statements and those statements pretty clearly spelled out some Democratic advocates' strategies. If you look to the next paragraph, Obama clearly refutes those strategic statements, saying "I think this perspective misreads the American people." You see, paragraphs in the English language are comprised of individual topics with a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence. When a paragraph is constructed, the supporting sentences are written to detail and emboss the topic sentence. As you can note, the topic sentence in the paragraph containing "appeasing Democrats" discusses the storyline "driving many advocacy groups and Democratic activists." Thus, the content following said topic sentence details that point. As much as I love to argue semantics with someone who cannot comprehend simple paragraph structures often taught on a third grade level, I am now choosing to retire from the conversation.
    Get this, will you. Obama is addressing Kos. Are you familiar with them? When they hear the term "progressive," they think a centrally planned economy and society. They think the Second Amendment means only the police should have guns (and the "elites," but they won't come out and say that). The First Amendment does not apply to "hate speech." (eg Fox News). The US military should be minimal, and we should rely on the good graces of the World's nations to keep us safe. We are only in danger now because we have been big bad bullies.

    Obama is not disagreeing with them. He is subtly telling them they can't be too aggressive in promoting their belief system (which he shares). Otherwise they won't be able to dupe those right wing idiots who aren't as smart as the "progressives."

  26. #26
    MonkeyF0cker
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,125
    Betpoints: 793

    And by telling them that they can't be too aggressive, it means purging moderates. Gotcha. You're brilliant. Keep trying. You're getting slightly closer, albeit still very far away.

  27. #27
    McBa1n
    Update your status
    McBa1n's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-02-06
    Posts: 2,643
    Betpoints: 175

    That's a rather big endorsement, IMO. The Economist is a great publication and very very conservative (fiscal, not retard/religious/neocon jackass).

  28. #28
    Larry Sinclair
    Larry Sinclair's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-27-08
    Posts: 101

    Quote Originally Posted by McBa1n View Post
    That's a rather big endorsement, IMO. The Economist is a great publication and very very conservative (fiscal, not retard/religious/neocon jackass).
    They support a carbon tax for the pseudo-science of global warming.

    Not exactly "very, very conservative"

  29. #29
    EBSB52
    EBSB52's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-30-08
    Posts: 606

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Then he intends to "purge" moderates after getting sufficient power.



    He's already said he will have some conservatives in his cabinet..... sorry Larry, try again.


    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-says-hed.html

  30. #30
    EBSB52
    EBSB52's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-30-08
    Posts: 606

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair View Post
    I guess you missed this part:

    In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
    Democrats appeasing the right wing are the Lieberman types, he's not a moderate, he's an independant by title but has always been a full-on Republican. Don't think so, after the Dems figured it out, they failed to nominate him, he ran as an Indep and of teh electorate that nominated him, 2/3 were Repub registered voters. This is the type Obama was refering to, but nice try at fear mongering.

  31. #31
    EBSB52
    EBSB52's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-30-08
    Posts: 606

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair View Post
    What do you think a more "progressive agenda" is and why would you want it?

    That means change, that's it. Doing things differently.

  32. #32
    EBSB52
    EBSB52's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-30-08
    Posts: 606

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    I'm posting from my iPhone right now, dolt. My apologies for not paying attention to all capitalization standards. That's the best you've got, huh? And, BTW, capitalization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with comprehension. Enjoy your ignorance.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>And, BTW, capitalization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with comprehension. Enjoy your ignorance.


    He shoots, he scores

  33. #33
    EBSB52
    EBSB52's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-30-08
    Posts: 606

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair View Post
    No it wasn't. Did not Bush campaign as a "uniter, not a divider," and as a "compassionate conservative"? That kind of "red meat" disgusted his extremist base. Exactly who are these Democrats who are appeasing Republicans? And what does he mean by a "progressive agenda." None of you moonbats ever address that.

    Conversation over. Not worth my time

    Translation: You know you are full of BS.

    Have a good night


    Answer me this, and I mean this without vex: why do neo-cons get so wrapped up with jargon, ornate language, expressions, etc? I'm concerned with results, results that are quantifiable with data or something empirical, I don't care about semantics of language or other things that don't contribute to an agenda, it is below me to worry about the occasional spelling/grammatical error or to get hung up on the latest expression, but it appears the RW lives on that. My theory is that results don't benefit the RW, so they have no other choice, but maybe that's giving them credit.

  34. #34
    EBSB52
    EBSB52's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-30-08
    Posts: 606

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair View Post
    You need to learn the difference between statements and strategy.


    And you need to learn that selective interpretation is dishonest. Illustarte how you think he wants to purge the admin of any moderates.

  35. #35
    EBSB52
    EBSB52's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-30-08
    Posts: 606

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair View Post
    They support a carbon tax for the pseudo-science of global warming.

    Not exactly "very, very conservative"

    Being a green Republican is quite often ventured these days, being green isn't an automatic giveaway for being a flaming liberal anymore.

123 Last
Top