Dems eating their own

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1213709667][quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1213701269]Link? Or at least a reference?</blockquote>


I was pointing out (that you were pointing out) the information gap. Nothing more. Easy there, sister.</blockquote>


No, no... it's all good. You were just referencing something from the other day and I wanted to see what it was so I wasn't getting only half the conversation.
 
[quote author="movingaround" date=1213741079]ok nowowway - maybe I do need to vote for Obama - good post..



Eva - in my personal experience there are democrats that are educated that are not elitist; however, in highly educated circles - which is where most of my experience lies - you are a minority if you are not extremely liberal in every single way. It is basically assumed that everyone agrees with the extreme liberal view and when you don't it is sort of met with incredulism and an attitude that you just must be missing some information or else you would also come to agree with them. In addition, the anti-american rhetoric in these circles is constant and strong - and although I do believe that one of the best things about our society is our freedom to critisize the govt., I also believe that constant anti-american rhetoric only serves to turn a lot of people off including me.



I did not feel about Kerry how I have felt about Obama - although he was accused of being an elitist as well as you mentioned.</blockquote>


MA - Ooohhhh, I know the kind you are talking about. If you don't march in lockstep with all of their ideology, then You Just Don't Get It. I'm sorry. Frankly, I have stopped talking politics with people who have no interest in listening or learning, but who only talk to reiterate their view. At that point, it's just noise. I would like to think I've come by my views from reason and experience, as well hearing the experience and views of others. My views have changed over time as I have received more information and been shown other perspectives.



I am curious to know what you define as "anti-American rhetoric." I hear that phrase a lot, but I'm not often sure what people mean by it. To me, it's someone who wants to destroy the country by any means necessary to create another country (e.g., the early 20th Century Communists, the Patriot movement, eco-terrorists, etc.), or severely damage the United States. Basically, I think it is words that are truly treasonous. I know a number of people who criticize the government, Congress, the President, and/or the Judiciary, but their criticism is motivated by a desire to make America a better** place, not a worse one, and they are willing to work within the current governmental structure. So to me, methods and motivations are very important in determining if certain speech is anti-American.



NWW - Your quote reminds me of something I saw on <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/">David Neiwert's blog</a> awhile back. He was interviewing a retired Army General who feared that over time the US would begin to resemble Argentina, with an upper class and an under class, but no middle. (I spent half an hour looking for it on Google and heck if I couldn't find it.) <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005309.php">Here's another analysis from a local writer.</a>







**Yes, I know, Communists, Patriots, and eco-terrorists all believe they are making things "better," but I think you know what I mean. As soon as I can figure out a way to articulate that better, I will.
 
the anti-americanism I was referring to is not what you are talking about green_cactus - but rather an attitude that other countries are so moral and make thier decisions altruistically while we (America) only make our decisions based on money and greed and what is good for America. In my opinion most countries make thier decisions based on what is good for them financially - and that is what a country should do - with a healthy dose of morality factored in. Now, I am not saying that greed does not run rampant here and that we have definite issues (e.g., CEO's making way to much money while the company stock crashes); I also do agree that other countries may have better models for handling greed. However, I think that can be communicated without constantly berating our country. And to top it all off I think we look pretty stupid when we go around berating our own country - like the Dixie Chicks - constructive criticism is good - childish attacks in the public eye are not.
 
Had the Dixie Chicks said the exact same thing in 2007 it would not have been such a big deal. They were ahead of their time (probably just by chance) in criticizing Bush and his war. These days people voice much harsher criticism with hardly any backlash.
 
[quote author="NoWowway" date=1213725985]

<strong>Memo to Americans from the Ultra-Rich:



We have conned you for years in order to place in effect a system by which we can destroy the middle class and create a labor pool of people so desperate to survive you will submit to any form of exploitation we choose to impose upon you. We have done this because the level of our greed will not support the existence of a middle class. We will not be satisfied until we possess, quite literally, everything -- including the labor of your bodies and minds in our service.



If you will not consent to accepting slave wages as sufficient remuneration for your services to us, we will abandon you and let you starve. There are plenty of already starving people on this planet whom we can exploit, and who will gladly perform as our wage slaves for the privilege of being permitted to eat.



You have been credulous fools for decades now, and we are very, very close to having you precisely where we want you. We doubt you have the strength of character or of will to prevent us from owning the entire planet and forcing the world's population into granting us what we believe we deserve -- concentration of all wealth and power into our hands and your permanent subjugation in service to our desire for the infinite luxuries you will produce for our pleasure.



Vote Republican."</strong></blockquote>
Bill Gates, Paul Allen, George Soros, William Buffet, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey and a great majority of the richest people on any of Forbes' lists do not vote Republican if they vote (foreign billionaires) at all. Furthermore, the "ultra-rich" will make their money or retain their wealth regardless of which political party hold power; the ability to obtain/retain massive amounts of capital is what allowed them to become ultra-rich in the first place. After World War 2, America was the only heavily industrialized nation in the world left intact. For much of the following 40 years, America was rebuilding or facilitating the rehabilitation of Europe, Japan, India, China, and the Middle East. As we were the main supplier of goods and services that were in high demand, our workers were able to demand higher and higher wages. As the rest of the "first" world returned to self suffiency, we focused our attention the "second" world nations and now those countries are flourishing. As the other countries began to produce more and more of their own goods and servces, demand for American goods and services fell, while labor costs increased. American companies were forced to choose between running themselves into the ground or cutting costs, leading to the initial globalization push of the late 80's as they chose to remain in business and employ foreign labor at lower cost. Now the "third" world is the focus of not just American attention; Europe, Russia, China, and India are all providing goods and services to those countries and the competition has greatly reduced the costs of the things we buy, but our success in rebuilding the world after WW2 has resulted in a huge drop in demand for the things we used to hold as a monopoly. There is no conspiracy, master plan, or secret society. There is simply the natural evolution of commerce and productivity.



Anecdotal evidence on the OP: I live in Seattle. I still see people with "W'04" stickers on their car. I see a flurry of Obama stickers, and even a sprinkling of Ron Paul stickers mixed in with the sea of "Impeach Bush" stickers. I have yet to spot a McCain sticker anywhere. Not even a single yard sign. Obama (provided nothing comes to light, like pictures of him molesting a goat or shoplifting a Barry Manilow CD) will win the national election in a landslide because the supporters of HRC will NOT vote for McCain. They are trying to put pressure on Obama to award HRC the Veep job, but when November comes around they are going to vote for Obama with a smile. Conservatives will not vote for McCain because they do not believe in him, he isn't courting them, and he doesn't share their values. If there is one group that is sure to stick to their guns and vote their principles, it is the conservatives in the Republican party.



Besides, if you don't vote for Obama you must be a racist.
 
I've wondered about this too. Obama and Clinton are very similar policy-wise, so it does seem odd. I guess I see two reasons Clinton supporters may balk. I think Obama comes across as more of an extreme liberal than Hillary and McCain comes off as a more moderate Republican and some moderate Clinton democrats are going for McCain. I also think there's got to be a lot of animosity between the two camps and after fending off Obama's attacks in the primary for so long some Clinton supporters probably think Obama is not such a nice guy. If they honestly think Obama is not a good man, I could understand them voting for McCain instead. Obama's got all those kooky radical associations, the Chicago poltical machine, etc in his past, McCain's got his issues but the man refused release from his POW camp. He stayed there to be tortured when he easily could have gone home and he did it b/c it wasn't the right thing to do (to be sent home out of repatriation order). However you may feel about McCain's policies that is phenomenal demonstration of integrity and some less policy driven democrats will be attacted by it now that Hillary's out.



Whatever the reason, Obama really didn't get much of a bump in the polls after clinching the nomination so something definitely gives.



It will be an interesting race and I predict it will be very close!
 
One of my friends just started a blog on politics, it is just getting up and running, but you should check it out...



www.michaelmortenson.com
 
Not spamming at all. I posted it on 3 threads regarding politics. It's not like I posted in a real estate/dining or non-related thread?! Its just a blog about politics that people on those 3 threads may be interested in. Its not like he makes money or profits from people visiting his blog. It's just a place to read articles and comments regarding the upcoming election.
 
Also...It's in no way competing with this site forum. It's not so much a comment/discuss blog, just some thoughts and articles. No biggie, just thought the people that are on the 3 threads may like to take a look? If they do or do not, it doesn't really matter, but why not share the site with people that are interested?
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1213672163]My problem with Senator Obama is he is the most liberal member in the senate.</blockquote>


NoVas, you should know better than to trust the National Journal. They diddled with their ratings so they could attack Obama - specifically, they counted *missing* a vote as voting "liberal".



A more honest rating comes from the American Conservative Union, which rated Obama as the <a href="http://www.acuratings.org/2007senate.htm">15th most liberal</a> (Liberal sites actually rank him as about 20th). In any case, he's a member of what I call the Senate Democratic Consensus, about 25 Senators who rarely disagree.



You can't really call *anybody* in the Senate a liberal, anyway. IMO a liberal is somebody who frequently holds positions supported by large minorities but opposed by majorities, i.e., more liberal than an average American. Examples would be:



Single-payer health care

Massive defense cuts (50% or more) and refraining from interventionist military policies

Gay marriage

Progressive taxation (as in, like under Eisenhower :-P)

Nationalizing the oil companies.



You can't find more than a handful of Senators supporting any of these (gay marriage has 4, nationalizing the oil companies 0, don't know the others but there are few if any). (There are some *real* liberals in the House, maybe a few dozen.) The Dem Senators who are in the Consensus are best described as center-left: on all issues where the "liberal" position is supported by a majority they support it; but they don't push anything that's meaningfully left of center. This is a marked contrast from the Republicans, who frequently (estate tax cuts, Iraq war, Social Security privatization, warrantless wiretapping) support positions supported by 25% or fewer of Americans.



Pardon my getting on my high horse here, but way liberal positions are marginalized and excluded from discussion really gets my goat. I understand why the Republicans have tried, but I have never understood why Americans go along with it.
 
I'm curious about something, why is it that most self described "liberals" live their lives like "conservatives?" by this I mean, some of the cheapest people I know consider themselves "liberals." They don't spend money on anything, dinners, clothing, cars, pan handlers, etc.... but when it comes to taxes, they think it's right (perhaps even a moral obligation) to require people to give their hard earned money to others? - why? "Conservatives" that I know donate thousands per year to charity, volunteer time to charity, give freely to panhandlers and the homeless - i just don't see the same level of generosity from "liberals." again, why?



Perhaps we should implement an option on our 1040s for liberals to check a box if they want to pay more in taxes since they seem to think it's a moral obligation. Or perhaps we ought to implement a party-based tax system, that is, anyone registered democrats will have an upper effective tax bracket at 50% and a lower tax bracket at 35%, with registered Republicans at todays levels. Want to bet if this was the law Republican registration would exponentially increase in a matter of weeks?



Let the liberals lead the way on taxes. I for one, think redistribution of wealth is a communist ideal - a system that, based on empirical evidence, is unsustainable.



Responses?
 
Well, the conservatives I hear of take bribes, solicit sex in public bathrooms, cheat on their wives, sexually harass their pages, hire illegal immigrants, associate themselves with the mob, abuse prescription drugs, frequent escort services or sexually harass their producers. Most of the conservatives must then be some twisted aberrations of human beings (given your logic).
 
Boy, this thread is going downhill fast. Can we all agree that most Americans, liberal and conservative, at least *want* to be decent people? Or at least that stereotyping invective doesn't lead to productive discussions?
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1214568088]Well, the conservatives I hear of take bribes, solicit sex in public bathrooms, cheat on their wives, sexually harass their pages, hire illegal immigrants, associate themselves with the mob, abuse prescription drugs, frequent escort services or sexually harass their producers. Most of the conservatives must then be some twisted aberrations of human beings (given your logic).</blockquote>
You must be talking about Dan Rostenkowski or Clarence Norman, Jr., Carl Stanley McGee, Jim McGreevy, Gerry Studds or Gary Condit, Zoe Baird or Kimba Wood, Alexi Giannoulias, Patrick Kennedy, Barney Frank or Eliot Spitzer, and Daniel Inouye respectively, right?
 
You know exactly who I'm talking about - but you are right, you can make such a blanket statement either way. That was my intended point to that nonsense about "most liberals" - cherry pick some examples and make a generalized statement out of it.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1214620129]That was my intended point to that nonsense about "most liberals" - cherry pick some examples and make a generalized statement out of it.</blockquote>
Then why not just attack his point on it's merits rather than use some "guilt by association" tactic. If you disagree with him, then prove his assertions are wrong and settle the issue. If you can't (or won't) then just shut up, because your 'points' just make you look like a Dem nutter who spouts crap just for the shock value. Please, elevate your arguments or you'll never be more than the left's equivalent of this guy:

<img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/get_a_brain_morans.jpg" alt="" />
 
green_cactus there actually have been studies showing this, that conservatives give considerably more money to charity than liberals. I'll see if I can find it and link to it. It was very interesting. It also showed that working class people give more (% wise) than people better off.



Note the study wasn't a slam on liberals or anything. I think it just illustrated that liberal-minded people give less b/c they believe that is the government's job, while conservative donate where they think $$ should go and loathe higher taxes that support charitable causes (aka social programs) they don't support.



There was a 20/20 special on it too. Very interesting stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top