|
|
|
|
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-19-2013 (1 - 6:23am, Jun 19)Last: Matt Chico's Bail Bonds (Dan Lee)Newsblog: Draft signings (117 - 5:48am, Jun 19)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Steinberg: St. Louis baseball writer makes hilarious jokes about the Nats (83 - 5:43am, Jun 19)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: [OTP-June] Economic Times: Hope politics, sports don’t get mixed up: Manmohan Singh (2117 - 4:52am, Jun 19)Last: Greg (U)KNewsblog: Stan "The Fan" Charles: After Biogenesis, Should MLB Players Still Have The Right To Arbitration? (26 - 4:40am, Jun 19)Last: Gonfalon BubbleNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread June, 2013 (596 - 4:40am, Jun 19)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (211 - 4:22am, Jun 19)Last: vivaelpujolsNewsblog: Schoenfield: Scherzer has turned into another Detroit ace (20 - 4:13am, Jun 19)Last: vivaelpujolsNewsblog: Murphy: Ruben Amaro Jr. doesn't "do" five-year plans, but the Phillies need a good one (24 - 4:12am, Jun 19)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: ‘Old man’ Arroyo pitching better than ever (3 - 4:07am, Jun 19)Last: vivaelpujolsNewsblog: Quiz: Do you know MLB rules? - SportsNation - ESPN (24 - 3:33am, Jun 19)Last: Rob_WoodNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for June 18, 2013 (193 - 2:48am, Jun 19)Last: Sleepy supports unauthorized ramblingNewsblog: OT: NBA Finals and June thread (912 - 2:39am, Jun 19)Last: robinredNewsblog: WaPo - Sheinin | For Angels' Mike Trout, no ceiling applies (53 - 1:43am, Jun 19)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: Kevin Youkilis needs back surgery, out 10-12 weeks (28 - 1:22am, Jun 19)Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Secretary of defense, 2006 to 2009 (Bush): Robert Gates
Secretary of defense, 2009 to 2011 (Obama): Robert Gates
Chairman of Joint Chiefs, 2007 to 2009 (Bush): Adm. Michael Mullen
Chairman of Joint Chiefs, 2009 to 2011 (Obama): Adm. Michael Mullen
Hmm ...
If Obama had an R next to his name he would be touting this exact same track records as "leadership and success."
Military reenlistment reached all-time highs under Bush and Rumsfeld. Their unpopularity among military types has been vastly overstated.
Just FYI Kehoskie, I don't respond to your posts much because I think you're a troll. If you're not, then you are so impossibly inflexible in your biases that you have no ability to carry on a political conversation like an adult. I was going to write something like "one wonders what the response would be if the opposite were true and the soldiers loved Obama but he was disliked by the generals." But no, one does not wonder. One knows that your response would be that the opinions of the grunts are irrelevant because the accomplished men who actually work hand in hand with Obama know better.
Your post #501 is an almost astonishing display of cognitive dissonance, by the way. Congrats.
Can we not turn this into another thread about Jack Morris' HoF qualifications?
really I would never ever have guessed.
I actually looked for that, can't find, but the Center for Army Leadership seems to have some fascinating stuff on their site.
He's Maynard. Nothing more, nothing less.
As determined by gross totals or as a percentage?
He IS a troll, but as trolls go he's a "good one" he sometimes has a point and doesn't just spew mindless invective, and besides sometimes you need someone, even a troll to play off of, or a thread (a politics thread) will turn into a circle jerk so to speak.
First Sam Hutcheson calls me an "idiot," and now this. I don't know how I'll be able to get through life knowing some guy who calls himself "Preserved Fish" doesn't like my political commentary.
What were the morale numbers for 2007 and 2008?
Why did people reenlist? Could it be because a few planes crashed into American buildings and the administration created some pretty strong incentives to reenlist?
Success in making himself a multi-millionaire, no doubt about that. Success in avoiding taxes to the point where he's too embarrassed to reveal his tricks of the trade, absolutely. Success in winning the nomination over world class opposition like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Can't beat that for an amazing achievement.
But then I'm probably being unfair, since Romney actually has accomplished one socially useful thing in his entire life: Romneycare. Too bad he's run away from that faster than Strom Thurmond ran away from his backyard Santa love child.
The same could be used as a defense for Obama as well. He came into a crappy situation and has been the leader while the nation has gotten less crappy.
As Jonathan Bernstein (among others) has pointed out, Kerry actually out-performed his fundamentals. It was just a lousy time for the Democrats.
Now the "fundamentals" approach has a pretty fair margin of error. IOW it's certainly possible that a different candidate could have won. It's just somewhat unlikely.
Well, personally I don't know how someone who makes a living by getting a cut from immigrants coming to this country can live with themselves when they believe those immigrants shouldn't be allowed to come to this country. Seems your motives for strong immigration controls is to profit from the barriers that are put up on these poor people looking for a better life.
Note to Jim: I'll stop debating Joe at this point in a direct manner since for whatever reason I'm not allowed. Everyone else apparently is allowed to call him in out and Joe gets to continue to spew his nonsense.
So Sam carry on with the good fight and Jim I'll try to be more obscure about my disagreeing with Joe.
That sounds a lot like the state of the economy since 2008, and yet it seems to be the Republicans' sole campaign theme.
EDIT: coke to McCoy
zonk, as a guy who agrees with you on most things (from what I can discern from BBTF threads, at least), this reads oddly to me; I thought Patrick's speech was about a jillion times better than Strickland's. Leaving aside substance--for the love of god, Ted, vary your pitch a little. (Actually, he did, toward the end--he started shouting even louder.)
He met the two (and there are only two) criteria. He was constitutionally eligible. He won the election. Evrything else is just talk.
That does not mean you can't talk about his accomplishments (or Palin's lack therein, or whatever), but it goes to the whole election thing. It is a Democracy, where the people get to decide. And they did.
Now, here in 2012, Obama is clearly more experienced than Romney. Whether he is is more "qualified" will be decided by, you guessed it, an election. One which will likely be won by Obama, but we shall see.
Other than getting elected to the office, previous accomplishments mean nothing*, unless you somehow want to try to prove that previous accomplishments are predictive of how a president will do in office (and good luck with that by the way).
* Well it does go to the total worth of a persons accomplishments, for example George Washington brings with him a pretty impressive pre-presidency career which adds to his LORE (Life Over Replacement Entity) rating, but should not change how his presidency is evaluated.
Oh, I killfiled the troll ages ago. I will occasionally point out to others that they're arguing with a troll for no purpose whatsoever.
I've never come out against immigration, just low-skilled immigration, especially at a time of high unemployment among low-skilled workers.
But regardless, there's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about my position on immigration. Professional athletes aren't low-skilled immigrants, so your logic doesn't seem to hold much water.
Liar. You quoted me in #424 before anyone else had done so.
The ability to hit a fastball has an expiration date. The ability to be an engineer or a doctor or a carpenter does not have an expiration date.
No, this is what I do when someone proves themselves incapable of rational discourse, Kneeps.
If Obama was the RNC, would Joe vote for him?
Hey, blame it on those racist, xenophobic Republicans who reclassified minor league players as skilled workers in 2006, thus granting them P1 visas rather than H2B visas.
Well, perhaps less cordial.
Coyotes are gonna coyote and mules are gonna mule.
The interesting part is if we combine the information in 501 with the knowledge* that the current brass prefer Obama to Bush leads one to believe that it really was Obama they were preferring.
However, I don't think what the Military think about the President is very significant. It is not the Presidents job to cater to the Military and make sure they like him. The President's job is to work for the benefit of the nation as a whole, to see to all of our interests.
Certain parties (for example the Military, but really anyone) might not like parts of it, but too darn bad. Elections are a popularity contest, but being Presidentis not. There are times when popularity makes the job much easier (bully pulpit and all that), but there is no reason the Military gets some kind of preferred status and their feelings matter more than teachers, students, or anyone else.
The fetish some folks have for the military is just plain bizarre. I am not against them, but why on Earth should their opinion of the President matter more than anyone elses?
* I say knowledge, but I have no idea who they prefer. Nor actually do I care honestly.
Now thems some big shoes I'm being pushed into.
Nonsense. Here's one example of what I said about Marco Rubio back when people were trumpeting him for v.p.:
For no good reason at all, of course. The rah-rah-military schtick is childish at best, dangerous at worst. The proper stance toward the military, by the President and everyone else, should be seriousness, respect, and skepticism.
Well, I could joke about it with about the dozen or so other people who have called him a troll. Which one would you prefer? But it wasn't really a joke. I don't really understand how Joe gets to spew his stuff, I'm not allowed a rebuttal, and everyone else gets to carry on just like I would have done if I was allowed. Of the two parties involved Jim's threats really only apply to me.
Sam H is posting what he believes as filtered through the bit he has (his BBTF personality as it were), and that honesty prevents him from also fitting my personal Troll definition.
Both can be a bit hard to take, but Sam is more amusing because his bit is off kilter and over the top enough (but that is pretty subjective). I think both add to the over OT politics thread.
Impossible to answer. Would he have the same positions? Who is his opponent?
Preserved Fish was an accomplished businessman and important part of a very successful New York political family. Try to do some research before you move straight to somewhat clueless denigration.
(And how much money does one think someone can make off a person "tops out at something like $25,000," btw?)
Sure it does, although that date is farther out.
That's the hilarious part of all of this: Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama. The liberals and the conservative act as if they're deeply analyzing and concerned about the issues, when really -- here's my sports analogy again -- they're doing nothing except voting for the uniform.
Which makes all of their election banter here pretty pointless.
See, this is nice and dry, good post.
In case you care (and I assume you don't), the reason I call you a troll, is because you do not argue honestly. If a "conservative" says or does something, you say it is good, if a "liberal" says or does the same thing, you say it is bad.
If you say that a liberal is bad because of A, and someone shows that A is not true, you say that the liberal is still bad due to not A.
I know you are going to say that everyone else, or at least all the liberals, argue this way, but no, it really is just you doing that here.
And I want you all to calibrate your mental pronunciation accordingly:
So someone who is against low skilled workers coming into this country because their prospects aren't good, won't make a lot of money thus requiring tax payer assistance, and take a job away from a native low skilled worker can be for having a highly skilled worker coming into this country even though their prospects aren't good, won't make a lot of money this requiring tax payer assistance, and take a job away from a native high skilled worker is being logically consistent with these two views? In terms of baseball minor leaguers what is the real difference between "high skilled" and "low skilled" outside the letter of the law? Economically they are in the same boat.
(And how much money does one think someone can make off a person "tops out at something like $25,000," btw?)
I don't know. It wasn't the profession I picked for myself.
Which makes all of their election banter here pretty pointless.
Not me. I would never vote for someone with Obama's positions on abortion/marriage/etc., if there was a less odious option.
I think this is probably an exaggeration. I agree that the letters D and R determine millions of votes, and some of the candidates' positions could conceivably be flipped from one party to the other. But Paul Ryan as a D doesn't make a lot of sense, unless the guy with the R is Adolf Hitler.
If the two candidates positions remained the same and we swapped the D and R - then by proxy, the party positions would be flipped and so would my vote.
This has to be one of the dumbest what ifs in the history of the BBTF OTPs...
Yes, if Mitt Romney were pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, believed health care was something more fundamental than changing your car's oil and as such, ought to have some role for government to ensure universal affordability, was opposed to neocon-based foreign policy, and likewise believed in public spending to boost an economy in need of a boost -- and Obama believed the opposite of those things, I would vote for Romney...
However, for all those things to be the case - Romney would be running as a D and Obama as an R.
Are we in syndication already with the nonsensical "no difference between the two parties" silliness from a decade ago?
I really don't think this is the case. We can add this to your Ryan statement.
What's funny is that Gov. Romney or Senate candidate Romney probably WOULD draw significant democratic support. A pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare candidate supporting a a long-term debt reduction plan which includes significant infrastructure investment and LGBT equality sounds fairly palatable.
The current Mitt Romney would be impossible for me to vote for because of his regressive social positions, if nothing else. His supply side economic policy is also pretty unappealing, though Romney's promised infrastructure expenditure is appealing (I promise I heard this in an interview). At least Obama wants to try and pay for his expenditures.
FWIW, Jill Stein might actually come closer to approximating my views and if we had instant runoff voting, I'd probably put a 1 next to her name and a 2 next to Barack Obama's (and a 3 next to Gary Johnson's.)
Not true. First of all some of us do care about issues, and on many issues (as we have discussed before) the two parties are very different. Most of the issue parsing is done in the primary.
Secondly with his current positions Obama could not get nominated dog catcher by the GOP, and Romney would have a nearly equally tough time. The reason many can "just vote the uniform" is because the uniform (party in this instance) holds within it a basket of positions on those issues you say are not important.
Swing voters either have a some of A some of B attitude or more often are basically low information (ignorant) folks who decide who to vote for, for whatever random reason they want.
However the fact that most Liberals will vote for the Liberal major party and most Conservatives will vote for the Conservative major party does not mean they are sheep, it means they have correctly identified the person that most closely matches their views. This is pretty m,uch the point of political parties, by the way.
EDIT: Coke to all who clearly type much faster than I. With fewer typos also. And less Rodent.
Ray, thank you for not paying attention for 5 years. Anti-gay, pro-life, anti-science, corporate wealth uber alles, and yet you still think it's a letter that makes the difference. Brilliant.
Preserved Fish was a rich banker and member of the NYSE who was involved with the corrupt Tammany Hall. It's comical for a liberal to use that as a screen name here and expect to be taken seriously.
***
This is comical. I have far more heterodox political positions than any of the liberals here. The fact none of you have noticed or are willing to admit it says much more about the liberals and their cocoon than it does about me.
Because they have the power to do something about their opinion. I can't believe this sort of thing even requires explanation to somebody who doesn't believe in natural rights, but reduces all rights to outgrowths of government power.
You may not have noticed, but a great many people pull the lever simply based on D or R.
And the idea that the BBTF high-fivers and Joe are above that is laughable.
I would have voted for Romney in a heartbeat if it were the same Mitt Romney who was the governor of Mass. The guy who's running for president now is a different guy.
Name one.
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about with regards to me, here, Ray.
No he's not. He's just changed his spots to suit his purposes. Much like Obama suddenly couldn't bear - simply couldn't bear - to associate himself with Jeremiah Wright or his church anymore. But the core is the same.
You may not have noticed, but a great many people pull the lever simply based on D or R.
Ray, that's mostly because one party or the other mirrors the majority of their views.
I almost always vote Republican b/c they usually match more of my views on the important issues. The exception is at the Town level, where I vote Democratic, b/c the Republicans are the tax and spend party, and social issues are irrelevant.
Um, sure -- and that 'D' and 'R' stand for basic differences in governing philosophy. I'm fairly sure it's not a matter of blue or red color preference. I have, on very rare occasions, voted for Republicans - more on the local level (believe it or not, there are urban Republicans who actually tout themselves as 'liberal Republicans'), but I voted for Dick Lugar on my last Indiana ballot (1994) and I also voted for George Ryan for governor in 1998.
So the President needs to kiss military @$$ because otherwise they will overthrow the government? Do you live in a Banana Republic somewhere? Seriously?
The military should be treated like everyone else. Full stop. It is the treating them like they are special, like they deserve extra attention, like they deserve a free pony and to be spoiled, that will eventually cause them to decide they ARE better and more deserving and which could lead to problems down the road.
Fortunately I believe and trust in our military, even though you clearly do not.
Proves my point. Among other things, I was for gay marriage long before Obama, and I've repeatedly called for higher wages for low-skilled workers.
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single liberal in these threads who holds a non-orthodox position on any major issue.
Do any of you deny this?
Yes.
First of all, we cannot reasonably guess what Romney's core is, because his views in Massachusetts may have been similarly altered to suit his purposes. But more importantly, that core doesn't matter, what matters is the decisions he's likely to make in office. Is Romney going to just back away from all of his new positions?
You liberals are the guys who worship power around here, not us libertarians. The military has a ton of power; why are you so surprised that people who are obsessed with power kiss up to them?
Reality dictates otherwise. The military is NOT like everyone else, because they have the power to do what other people and institutions do not.
This is utterly non-responsive to anything I've said. Don't stop though, I like watching you throw self-righteous little hissy fits.
Well, I'm against raising the minimum wage. I'm also more libertarian when it comes to social issues. I'm liberal because the Republican party has gone batshvt crazy over the last 20 years.
You don't differentiate. To you any liberal voice is just one of a chorus of cliches. That is why you are infuriating to talk to.
Yes. I probably wouldn't vote just like I didn't vote in 2008.
What positions is the slimy little bastard advocating for? Does John Edwards, terrible person, advocate for the expansion of civil rights for gays and lesbians? Does he advocate for reduced military spending and an end to "preemptive" wars of aggression? Does he support fiscally conservative policies such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset in order to better address the looming national deficit issues? Does he support Wall Street and the financial sector over stimulating the decades long stagnation and collapse of the middle class? Does he support a woman's right to her own body, or does he think the government should tell women when and where they must become officially sanctioned breeding sows of the state?
If he's right on the issues I don't care who he ##### on the side, nor if he's doing twin Playmates in the rumpus room while his wife is coughing up lung tissue in the back room.
The military has to change a whole helluva lot in order for this to be true. There are no military coups on the horizon nor in the solar system right now.
I am a liberal, and I am vehemently against the preferential component of racial/gender policies, legal and political. Equal under the law and in the political process means just that. It doesn't mean more equal for some.
I also find that part of the moralizing green environmental mindset that seems to think that the US in particular and the West in general has a moral duty to commit suicide or return to the dark ages (that this will somehow magically make things right) to be ridiculous and repugnant.
This can't be stressed too much. The RP is the party of bogus impeachments, anti-evolution and anti-science, and religious fundamentalism at its most odious and dangerous. Remember Terri Schiavo? If that doesn't make you shudder, then you must be reptilian to the core.
Is a silly hypothetical. How about if Edwarda was running against Gingrich. That is a match made in heaven. They can debate the best way to treat a cancer striken spouse and the proper use of hypocrisy in politics.
But in an alternate universe, given the choice of a horrible person who espouses my views or a noble person whose views I find terrible I think you have to look deep and decide. One of the two Republican votes I have done in my life was in fact because I could not stomach voting for the guy with the D by their name. I voted against the corrupt bastard in the primary, and in the general I voted for the R.
Other times I have voted for the D, even though I knew they were not as good a person, because I am voting for issues and policies and not someone to be my best friend or date my children. Or, basically what Sam said.
You have no possible way of knowing such a thing. But if your prediction turns out to be correct, the reason you'll be correct is because the political establishment has gone to great lengths over the years to keep the military happy and well-fed. In short, because our politicians do exactly what BM is decrying in this thread.
No, it's not. That's a modern liberal construct.
The President's job is to preside over the executive function of the federal government and prosecute his other constituional powers and obligations, e.g., as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
There are times when popularity makes the job much easier (bully pulpit and all that), but there is no reason the Military gets some kind of preferred status and their feelings matter more than teachers, students, or anyone else.
This, too, is off -- the military is more entitled to "preferred status" by virtue of the President being their commander-in-chief. It's shocking that this simple fundamental of the US system could be so elusive.
I'm not that outraged--not to the extent that it negates all policy merits.
From what I can tell (and, admittedly, my reading of this is cursory), he's more victim than victimizer. He was married to a shrew and a scold who demeaned him as a matter of course, took refuge with someone who pretended to sympathized, who then parlayed that for all it was worth. Not the perfect person by any means, but, then, yadda yadda.
Why does it matter though? Is it a badge of honor to have ones own personal Sister Souljah moment with regards to ones party?
So long as he advocated and I believed him regarding the things that there in campaign platform, sure... Given his sleaziness, the "believe him" part would be tough to overcome. I'd probably still vote for him, but my energies would likely be focused downballot.
I'm confused, are we now arguing that Democrats ignore 'style'/personality instead focusing on the 'substance' of the party's generally held positions? Is whiplash a covered condition under Obamacare?
Granted that the Dems would never be caught dead saying that they're pro-life. The legal monolith of abortion remains a real bone of contention between the two parties, not that it'll change anytime soon. But...
Are you saying that Obama wasn't "anti-gay" before he was pro-gay (again)? Or that the Democratic Party's populist core is pro-gay? Or that the Obama- and Reid-led budget-free Democrats are even pro-mathematics, much less pro-science (whatever that means)? Or that Obama isn't one of the most corrupt presidents in history, shamelessly handing out plunder extorted from working Americans to campaign donors and friends in private industry and not even attempting to disguise or excuse it? Or that the Obama presidency has been somehow distinguishable from the Bush presidency in the experience of most Americans who are not beneficiaries of corporate welfare?
Where have you been for the past four years, and is there room for one more on the island?
Not to distract from the usual blanket party we all enjoy so much, but when did libertarians adopt "liberal" as a label for people who are notably un-liberal (or even anti-liberal when it comes to economics)?
Well, you have no possible way of knowing that the US military could stage a coup. It is just a hypothetical. Yes, people with guns can use those guns on their own people and against the wishes of elected officials but there is no evidence of that ever happening in America*
*And since the early 19th century was a crazy time let me constrain it to the last 60 to 100 years or so.
There's a good deal of truth in this. We all have tendency to team up, then to make it a "us v. them" thing.
Think if Obama had not had a black Muslim father, had not lived in darkest nether regions--you think the opponents wouldn't have looked for a hook so as to simplified choices. What if, instead, he had been the Mormon. Would the Republicans, and the religious right, been so low-key, if not downright conciliatory, as they are with Romney now on this issue?
Which is what exactly? Stage a coup? Oh please!
Which is why I voted for Connie Morella every time she ran for Congress against a wide variety of liberal Democrats. You're about as good at mind reading as you are about predicting division winners.
But since you think that labels are everything, why don't you dress up in a mini-skirt and try your luck in a bar. You might want to shave, though, since most guys don't go for bearded ladies.
There you go again...
The constitution said nothing about the 'seat of government' - yet, the Residence Act was one of the nation's first pieces of legislation and there was Washington, laying out what would be a fabulous city grid that was designed to be impressive to visitors - and built at no small cost - in a Virginia swamp.
While monies were being spent on creating a capital city from scratch, he then likewise presided over the Hamilton-Jefferson feud regarding taxation and debt, siding with Hamilton, and personally leading the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
"Modern liberal construct".
Next, I think we need an OT Remedial History thread...
The idea that the military would even want to stage a coup is absurd on its face. There is no single greater embedded government agency than the military-industrial complex. Why would they coup when they already run the ship of state?
SBB - So by your logic the CEO of a company should giver preferential treatment to their employees over the customers? Just because the President is Commander in Chief does not me he has to kiss their behind. It means he is in charge.
Now, does the President have a responsibility to the Military as their commander? Yes. That responsibility is not to be deferential to them. it is not to kiss their posterior. It is to not waste their work, their talents.
The President is the President of the whole nation.
Where does the constitution establish the preference the military has as their right?
Do any of you deny this?
If the John Edwards of today were running against Romney, it'd have to be as a 3rd party candidate, and no, I wouldn't vote for him. Duh.
If your assumption is that Edwards could ever get the Democratic nomination after his scandal broke, you're even more disconnected from reality than I'd ever even imagined.
The POTUS is CiC specifically to keep the military subservient to the elected government, you gits. The entire point of making the POTUS the CiC as well was to make sure that the CiC and the elected executive of the people were never at odds.
The POTUS has one responsibility with regards to the military: tell them what to do and give them the means to accomplish the people's goals. The military has one responsibility to the POTUS; carry out his lawful commands.
There's very little difference between the parties. If the system was healthy, they'd break down into labor and capital parties, but it's not, so they are both corporatist parties. They're all but identical on the surveillance/torture/death by drone on the president's orders state, the inviolability of the bulge bracket banks and King Finance, and the "war on terror" -- three areas terribly in need of an opposition party.
Obama has ratified all of the excesses of the Bush years, right down to the massive deficits. I know that's tough on the psyches of people who think only "healthcare reform" when they think of him, but it's reality.
Could they? Sure, they have the power. But as I said earlier and as Sam states here, they don't need to because both political parties are deeply invested in keeping them fat and happy.
That's why I use the adjective "modern." Today's "liberals" are, as you note, highly illiberal.
The closest I came to voting for a republican was not voting for whomever D ran against Arnold's gubernatorial reelection. I also voted for Nader not Gore and Clinton only once (but did not vote for Dole, of course).
The old ruling Progressive Conservative party became so disliked that they disintegrated in just one election (going from ruling party to not-officially-recognized-party status). Instead, the right-wingers decided to back a new conservative party, which eventually grew to become the current ruling party.
The old ruling Liberal party became so disliked that they've tumbled into third place in the national party status, leading to a surge in the more-left-wing party to grow from 3rd place status (federally) to become the official opposition.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main