Revolution?

[Nathan]

Nathan, are you freaking kidding me?! I "blindly support" nothing (well, maybe Them Crooked Vultures)! If I'm not considered one of the 10 most strident critical thinkers you have ever met I shall be sorely disappointed.

I apologize. Making those suggestions were out of line. I recant them entirely.

[Electrophile]

"If I'm not considered one of the 10 most strident critical thinkers you have ever met I shall be sorely disappointed."

Time to get disappointed, then.

[Nathan]

If anyone ever wanted to know my stance on Politics in America, watch this clip of Bill hicks (it's audio with a picture montage):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U

[SteveAJones]

"If I'm not considered one of the 10 most strident critical thinkers you have ever met I shall be sorely disappointed."

Time to get disappointed, then.

Respectfully, it was directed to him, not some empty-headed, foul-mouthed, big-breasted mattress trasher.

Edit: I almost forgot:

[Patrycja]

This is easy to answer, the vast majority of Americans don't want it. You can't ram something down peoples throats that they clearly don't want and expect it to work.

"Seventy percent (70%) of likely voters now favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That’s up five points over the past month and is the highest level measured in nearly three years.

Just 19% would prefer a government that provides more services in exchange for higher taxes, down five points from July and the lowest level in over two years. This marks the first time the percentage of voters who prefer this type of government has fallen below 20%."

source

That's about as direct as it gets. I am curious, though, whether access to medical aid is considered a basic human right in the States? It's not fair to ask one person nor do I think one person's view represents everyone's, but the bolded above seems to be a clear voice if you're talking services, but if a service is deemed a basic human right, then maintaining a certain system because the majority supports it even if it is harmful (in this case I mean harm by exclusion), then it gets a bit murky, no?

"If I'm not considered one of the 10 most strident critical thinkers you have ever met I shall be sorely disappointed."

Time to get disappointed, then.

That quote must surely have been with tongue firmly placed in cheek, otherwise...

Respectfully, it was directed to him, not some empty-headed, foul-mouthed, big-breasted mattress trasher.

Edit: I almost forgot:

..."critical thinking" at its best ... just not classy ... disappointing

[SteveAJones]

..."critical thinking" at its best ... just not classy ... disappointing

She loves it. Besides, she has been warned with peace and love not to request autographs after October 20th.

[59LesPaul]

She loves it. Besides, she has been warned with peace and love not to request autographs after October 20th.

:lol: :lol:

[ZPN]

He is the first U.S. President to breach established protocol and render a subservient bow to the Saudi King:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93696

Since he has chosen to comport himself as a Muslim subject, I have chosen to address him by his Muslim name.

Gee, did Bush breach "protocol" after 911, when flights were grounded and the Bin Ladens/Saudis/Bandar "Bush"

got to fly out of the country? How about when he went to war in Afghanistan & Iraq, instead of Saudi Arabia, which was the home of (I think) all but 2 of the 911 terrorists? And when he said OVER & OVER that there was a connection between Bin Laden/911/Saddam Hussein? Even after Bush HIMSELF later said this was NOT true, a significant percentage of the public continued to believe it. How about when he said he didn't really care about Bin Laden/didn't think about him much? I wonder if protocol says that when this country is attacked, the president should sit on his ass reading a children's book for several minutes? I'm waiting for you to start in about how scandalous it was that Obama gave the Queen an iPod (the Queen had requested one).

No, I'm not a huge fan of Obama. I do think he is light years better than Bush, but not my first choice. I voted for my first choice, Nader, in 2000 & 2004. He is truly progressive. If America had been given the chance to hear him in debates, I'm sure a sizeable percentage would have found that they agreed with him on many

so called "left" or "liberal" issues, like single payer health care, renegotiating NAFTA & CAFTA, living wage, ending the war in Iraq, campaing finance reform, elimination of the electoral college, environmental, consumer and worker protections, and instant runoff voting...In both 2000 & 2004 Nader was filling lecture halls and even stadiums with people who paid to get in, while most Democrats/Republicans couldn't do that with free admission. The public support was much higher for Nader than the media would allow us to believe. They only referred to him as a spoiler. Then he was kept out of debates and off ballots by the Democrats (even the most progressive Democrats, that I normally support, were on TV trying to stop people from voting for Nader, saying "anything but Bush"). The Dems mailed flyers with elephants on them, saying Nader was accepting campaign donations from Republicans. The inconvenient truth that they neglected to add, was that Democrats were gladly doing this too.

I voted for Obama in 2008 because I couldn't stand the idea of McCain/Palin, or having Nader and his supporters being blamed for the Democrats losing again. Where is it written that voters will only have a choice between the 2 major parties? That corporations/the media basically weed out all but the 2 candidates they will accept for the general election? That one or the other of those parties is entitled to our votes?

None of this makes me a socialist. I am not a member of any socialist (or communist or fascist) party. But I do think there are some areas where capitalism is not appropriate-like health coverage, social security, education...and others. I don't think the supreme court should be made up of board members of GE. I don't think

Bill Gates should be appointed president because he makes more money than anyone else. We've already given corporations legal status equivalent to citizens, and I don't think that's right.

[ZPN]

So you are that ridiculous. Imagine that. I cannot believe you linked to WorldNetDaily. You cannot tell me you're not a Republican when you link to WorldNetDaily. That would be like me linking to DailyKos or The Huffington Post after saying I'm not a Democrat. You'd think I was off my rocker.

WorldNetDaily?! What next, Steve? FreeRepublic? Little Green Footballs? National Review Online? Michelle Malkin's blog? Holy crap, you expect that to be taken seriously?

Holy freakin' footballs.

There are many of us who read Huffinton Post, listen to progressive talk radio, and watch MSNBC but are NOT Democrats. The DNC (incl Clintons, Gore, Lieberman-please!)has moved the party way to far to the right for some of us. There are some Democrats on the national level that I agree with on most things-Kennedy was one (and Wellstone and Mark Dayton), Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, John Lewis, Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, Russ Feingold...if there were more Democrats like them on the national level, and if any of them had any chance of being elected President (the DNC would never allow it-they wouldn't even allow Howard Dean to), I'd remain a Democrat. Any of the people I mentioned probably would be getting bipartisan consensus on public option, because they'd have started by pushing single payer.

[Deborah J]

Yeah... And it was written this year, because Health Care is an issue this year.

This is the last time I will ask. Stop with the college thing. It's pathetic, okay?

I am getting sick and tired of you and TypeO deliberately ignoring things I've been saying, taking swipes at me because I'm a college student, and so on. It's annoying, ridiculous, and proves you have nothing constructive to actually say to me. My points are obviously the better points because your response to them is to insult me mainly because I'm a college student.

And how am I traitorous? Because I exercise my Freedom of Speech to say that there's something wrong with this country? That's not traitorous. Traitorous is selling secrets to Russia during the Cold War. Traitorous is harboring Nazi's during WWII.

Traitorous is not pointing out flaws in America's system. What you just accused me of is one of the many reason we rebelled against England in the first place.

Let's see...

-War in Iraq

-Patriot Act

-Wiretapping

I don't think Franklin was talking about me (or others with my viewpoint).

Hello Nathan,

I am trying to stay out of these [plitical threads. College is great and my son will graduate next year, and we have very stern discussions about politics. He wanted Ron Paul (yes my son ), but he has a mind of his own and is entitled to it as long as it's legal and does not hurt anyone.

When you graduate, you will face oposition all the time on the work force, so get used to it and deal with it profesionally...it's beter in the long run:-) IMHO

[ZPN]

He is the first U.S. President to breach established protocol and render a subservient bow to the Saudi King:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93696

Since he has chosen to comport himself as a Muslim subject, I have chosen to address him by his Muslim name.

Obama is Christian. He's said that often. I wish he would mention God and religion less, because our laws are secular, apply to everyone whether religious or not, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.

A Christian state or a Jewish state or a Muslim state or a Hindu state are all the same. Think about it-where/when has the most violence occurred? In religious states, or secular states where religious zealots were trying to take over (Rome, Ireland, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nazi Germany, Jonestown...). Not every religious person is violent. Not every church/temple/mosque is bad. But religion is EASILY taken over by extremists and used for violent purposes, because it is based on dogma and strict rules, and divides people-one's own religion are "true" believers vs "other" religions or "non" believers. Authoritarian (and probably mentally ill/psychotic) personalities often wind up in charge of populations who follow them like sheep. And patriotism can be used as a religion. Hence secular dictators/strict party loyalty-like Russia/USSR. I don't see Obama falling in either category of extremist(secular/socialist/christian/fascist). He's moderate. And Christian. Just because his middle name is Hussein means nothing! Robert Plant's middle name is Anthony but that doesn't make him a Roman emperor (or whatever Marc Anthony's title was)!

[SteveAJones]

Gee, did Bush breach "protocol" after 911, when flights were grounded and the Bin Ladens/Saudis/Bandar "Bush" got to fly out of the country? How about when he went to war in Afghanistan & Iraq, instead of Saudi Arabia, which was the home of (I think) all but 2 of the 911 terrorists? And when he said OVER & OVER that there was a connection between Bin Laden/911/Saddam Hussein? Even after Bush HIMSELF later said this was NOT true, a significant percentage of the public continued to believe it. How about when he said he didn't really care about Bin Laden/didn't think about him much? I wonder if protocol says that when this country is attacked, the president should sit on his ass reading a children's book for several minutes?

I can see your trying very hard to make some profound point and articulate a lucid point of view. Keep trying.

[Aquamarine]

Respectfully, it was directed to him, not some empty-headed, foul-mouthed, big-breasted mattress trasher.

Edit: I almost forgot:

As you were "respectfully" addressing this post to Electrophile--if this is supposed to be your description of her, I think it's absolutely despicable to describe another forum member in those terms, and should be considered banworthy. If she will accept an apology, I'd suggest sending one ASAP. It's one thing to disagree about issues, but this kind of personal attack is totally disgusting, IMO.

[SteveAJones]

Obama is Christian. He's said that often. I wish he would mention God and religion less, because our laws are secular, apply to everyone whether religious or not, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.

A Christian state or a Jewish state or a Muslim state or a Hindu state are all the same. Think about it-where/when has the most violence occurred? In religious states, or secular states where religious zealots were trying to take over (Rome, Ireland, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nazi Germany, Jonestown...). Not every religious person is violent. Not every church/temple/mosque is bad. But religion is EASILY taken over by extremists and used for violent purposes, because it is based on dogma and strict rules, and divides people-one's own religion are "true" believers vs "other" religions or "non" believers. Authoritarian (and probably mentally ill/psychotic) personalities often wind up in charge of populations who follow them like sheep. And patriotism can be used as a religion. Hence secular dictators/strict party loyalty-like Russia/USSR. I don't see Obama falling in either category of extremist(secular/socialist/christian/fascist). He's moderate. And Christian. Just because his middle name is Hussein means nothing! Robert Plant's middle name is Anthony but that doesn't make him a Roman emperor (or whatever Marc Anthony's title was)!

Obama is a moderate?! He was widely known as one of, if not the single most liberal Senator in Congress. Look at his freaking voting record! Are you freaking kidding me? His middle name is relevant; his father is a Muslim and

Obama breached US Presidential protocol by comporting himself as a Muslim. Facts. Now, Obama can claim to be Christian all day long, but he spent 20 plus years in a church with Reverend Wright as the pastor. Who is kidding who?

[SteveAJones]

As you were "respectfully" addressing this post to Electrophile--if this is supposed to be your description of her, I think it's absolutely despicable to describe another forum member in those terms, and should be considered banworthy. If she will accept an apology, I'd suggest sending one ASAP. It's one thing to disagree about issues, but this kind of personal attack is totally disgusting, IMO.

Thanks, Mom but the record shows your mouth never opens when she labels me a bigot, a fascist, and so forth.

[longdistancewinner]

Thanks, Mom but the record shows your mouth never opens when she labels me a bigot, a fascist, and so forth.

You don't strike me as the sort of person many would want to defend...

Does it make you feel big to attack a member in such a personal way?

[Nathan]

Steve and ZeppyNetters... you are both right about Obama's political leanings.

Zeppy... in this country with its general Moderate-to-Conservative leanings, Obama is very Liberal, even for Democrats.

That said... Steve, for a lot of Liberals, Obama is a Moderate. Most people I know who are British, or Swedish, etc consider Obama Left-of-Center. Democrats are Moderate compared to the Liberalism of many countries around the world. ZeppyNetters seems to lean very, very far to the left... further then Obama (even further then me, whether or not you want to believe it). So I can see why ZeppyNetters says Obama is a moderate.

In my personal opinion, Obama is a middle-leaning Liberal. He's not Moderate enough to be considered a Centrist, but not left-leaning enough to be considered a true Liberal (maybe to American standards, but... again... America is a rather Conservative nation to begin with).

So you're both right (or wrong... however you wanna look at it).

[SteveAJones]

Does it make you feel big to attack a member in such a personal way?

You're making a number of assumptions, as is Aquamarine. I recall it took you five posts to comprehend it is more likely for jackets to be worn in December than in April. Let's see if you can grasp this in one post: it is

more likely for Aquamarine and yourself to make indignant assumptions over my posts than anyone elses.

[SteveAJones]

Steve and ZeppyNetters... you are both right about Obama's political leanings.

Zeppy... in this country with its general Moderate-to-Conservative leanings, Obama is very Liberal, even for Democrats.

That said... Steve, for a lot of Liberals, Obama is a Moderate. Most people I know who are British, or Swedish, etc consider Obama Left-of-Center. Democrats are Moderate compared to the Liberalism of many countries around the world. ZeppyNetters seems to lean very, very far to the left... further then Obama (even further then me, whether or not you want to believe it). So I can see why ZeppyNetters says Obama is a moderate.

In my personal opinion, Obama is a middle-leaning Liberal. He's not Moderate enough to be considered a Centrist, but not left-leaning enough to be considered a true Liberal (maybe to American standards, but... again... America is a rather Conservative nation to begin with).

So you're both right (or wrong... however you wanna look at it).

I know I'm not wrong because regardless of how your British and Swedish friends perceive him, he was elected President of the USA to serve American citizens. His leanings are most appropriately judged by their standards.

[Nathan]

I know I'm not wrong because regardless of how your British and Swedish friends perceive him, he was elected President of the USA to serve American citizens. His leanings are most appropriately judged by their standards.

Guess what... all of the Brits and Swedes I know live in America, many long enough to have voted in this past Presidential election. Therefore, their points are valid.

And there are many Americans who are liberal enough to consider Obama Moderate.

[longdistancewinner]

You're making a number of assumptions, as is Aquamarine. I recall it took you five posts to comprehend it is more likely for jackets to be worn in December than in April. Let's see if you can grasp this in one post: it is

more likely for Aquamarine and yourself to make indignant assumptions over my posts than anyone elses.

I'm flattered that those five posts (seriously - time to let go) have made such an impression on you. You keep rehashing that pathetic little argument, because, frankly, you have nothing more to go on. No doubt, if you could, you'd probably get just as personal about me.

And, yes, it is more likely for me to make such an 'indignant' assumption of you. But having read what you often post, it's not hard to see why.

[SteveAJones]

Guess what... all of the Brits and Swedes I know live in America, many long enough to have voted in this past Presidential election. Therefore, their points are valid.

And there are many Americans who are liberal enough to consider Obama Moderate.

Guess what...I don't believe in being a hyphenated American so if they are U.S. citizens they ought assimilate.

And of course there are many Americans who are naive enough to consider Obama moderate.

Barack Obama, False Moderate

His centrism is a pose.

By Rich Lowry National Review 10/24/2008

The only two Democrats who have won in the past 10 presidential elections were moderates from the South. This datum made the nomination of Barack Obama a liberal from the South Side, not the South seem an unnecessary gamble for Democrats. At least before it became evident how convincing an imitation Obama could do of his moderate Democratic forebears.

Obama's campaign has some of the trappings of Bill Clinton's winning 1992 and 1996 campaigns. Obama is like Clinton in 1992 in that he's running against a deeply unpopular incumbent president (although George W. Bush isn't on the ballot) and brandishing a middle-class tax cut. He's like Clinton in 1996 in that he's burying an older opponent in an avalanche of paid advertising, while branding himself a centrist.

Clinton had earned the right in 1992 to run as a "new kind of Democrat" by confronting liberal interest groups in the primaries. Obama simply showed up the day after he won the nomination and declared himself a centrist. Everything since has been couched in reassuring, moderate terms in brilliant salesmanship worthy of the best minds at the American Marketing Association.

Obama's tax cut for 95 percent of working people is one of the reasons he has a 2-1 advantage on "helping the middle class," according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. Obama's proposal doesn't actually cut income or payroll tax rates. Overall, John McCain's proposal cuts taxes more than Obama for typical families. But Obama sounds more zealous about middle-class tax cuts.

On health care, Obama has attacked McCain's proposal on conservative grounds, claiming it would trash the current system of employer-provided insurance and raise taxes. As for his own proposal? It's the centrist alternative. His advertising contrasts two approaches to health care — one government-run, the other allowing insurance companies to run amok. "Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong," says the ad.

On social issues, Obama says he opposes gay marriage. Never mind that he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. He says he supports reducing the abortion rate. Never mind that he supports taxpayer funding of abortion. On gun rights, his campaign has been running advertisements explaining "Barack Obama and John McCain will both make sure we can keep our guns." In his public presentation, Obama might as well be an embittered rural voter clinging to guns and religion.

Then, there's his steady demeanor. He's so even-keeled, you could practically put a level on his head and its bubble would barely move. This quality served him well during the financial meltdown. But if Obama's elected, we may look back and wonder why everyone thought passivity in a crisis spoke of extraordinary leadership skills.

Obama is able to get away with all this because he has a thin record, and what record he has the press isn't willing to examine. In the Illinois Legislature, Obama voted against legislation protecting infants born alive after abortions — votes so outrageous the press acts as if they simply couldn't have occurred. Obama can reinvent himself at will, a political Gatsby with all of America as his East Egg.

If elected, Obama will return to Washington with expanded and emboldened liberal majorities in both the Senate and the House. Congress was the un-doing of his two Democratic forebears. Carter was stiff-necked with a Democratic Congress, and that made it nearly impossible for him to govern; Clinton accommodated his Democratic Congress in 1993-94, and it pulled him to the left to devastating effect in the 1994 congressional elections.

For a President Obama, moderation could no longer be merely a pose that represents the path of political least resistance; he'd have to fight for it every day with partisan colleagues who are older and tougher than he is.

When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never. This is why part of McCain's closing argument must be that he'd be a better check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than the moderate poseur.

[Hotplant]

Thanks, Mom but the record shows your mouth never opens when she labels me a bigot, a fascist, and so forth.

You can add hate monger to that list. Honestly, do you have anything nice to say ever and no you can't count TCV's?

Every single day in Random you spew and spew and spew. It's really getting old. I'd block you but you do better stuff in Zep history and so on.

Is there one single topic you could make that has a positive slant for all.

[Aquamarine]

Thanks, Mom but the record shows your mouth never opens when she labels me a bigot, a fascist, and so forth.

Because she's attacking your views on the issues, not you personally, or has the distinction genuinely escaped you?

And I'm wondering why you're suddenly claiming that I and ldw make "more indignant assumptions" about your posts than anyone else. Where else have I done this, or made an assumption about your posts that was incorrect? (And I have also agreed with you on many occasions.) And I can only think of that one occasion when you had a disagreement with ldw. Your skin seems mighty thin today, Steve?

(Or, if the meaning of your unclear sentence was that I and/or longdistancewinner challenge your posts more than anybody else's posts, all I can say is that there are a bunch of people who would disagree with that. But if it makes you feel good to be singled out . . . )

[Nathan]

Guess what...I don't believe in being a hyphenated American so if they are U.S. citizens they ought assimilate.

Guess what? America's a melting pot. It has hundreds of different cultures within it. Get used to it.

And of course there are many Americans who are naive enough to consider Obama moderate.

The point is, he's not Liberal enough. Progressive? Yes. But for some, not Progressive enough.

Here's something to consider. And I know you'll dismiss it off-hand, but you should think about it:

He won't legalize Marijuana. In fact, he still intends to continue fighting the idiotic War on Drugs:

http://rawstory.com/...oy-to-colombia/

http://www.cbsnews.c...in5250608.shtml

That's a pretty moderate thing to do for a supposedly extremely Liberal politician.