Does that make you a disenfranchised maladjusted dipwad abusing other people’s time to stand on the periphery of others’ arguments making stupid potshots?
(emphasis added)
It’s those reasonable questions I’d like to see more of, and less of the dogmatic assertions. Hell, I’ve been guilty of presenting “the conservative viewpoint” as I see it, so this isn’t finger pointing. It’s bad when liberals misrepresent rightwing arguments, and I really find it galling when liberals on “my” side of an argument hand wave pertinent questions and make unsupported ideological assertions of Truth, but I do find that type of behavior more prevalent among conservatives.
What was particularly irksome in this thread was to see strawmen and vitriolic oneliner putdowns coming from one of the few conservatives on this board I’ve observed acknowledging valid arguments and responding in good faith to pointed rebuttals. It was a reminder to me that no matter how reasonably hard line rightists are capable of conducting themselves, the conservative perspective is a fundamentally closed mindset.
Unless we liberals can appeal to the particular sacred cows of the right (group loyalty, ‘individual responsibility’, law & order, market solutions, etc.), mere rational pragmatism will never persuade the 30-40% or so of the population who are bedrock conservative. -This, by the way, is why Obama is both an effective POTUS and will never be embraced by the vehement left, who are just as recalcitrant as their brethren and sistren on the right (but far less singleminded about it).
Not about to embrace him, but I knew he was center left when I voted for him. Of course he’s not left enough for me, but then neither is most of the country, but we’re working on that. Not so important that he isn’t sufficiently lefty, what he most importantly was was adequately not John McCain. Stellar performance, in not being John McCain.
But I knew what I was getting, and I’m not shockedshocked. What I don’t like is stealth radicalism, if your goal is effective radical transition, you are obliged to be right up front with it. Kinda like St. Robert of Hibbing say, if you live outside the law, you must be honest. If Gov Walken had run a campaign promising to hobble his political opponents by crippling unions, he would have lost. Even he is smart enough to know that.
If Obama suddenly turned to being far more liberal than he said he would be, then I can’t really trust him, can I? Even if I approve of the agenda, I would no longer trust the man, I’d be looking to keep the agenda and get a different leader. But without the honest and knowledgeable approval of the people, it ain’t progress, the people are progress, the elections are merely their reflection.
(My spell check still doesn’t recognize “Obama”. Fox. Definitely…)
Never thought of you as part of what I was calling ‘the vehement left’, luci… I don’t say that to belittle you, but you’re pretty damned flexible for a commie symp pinko. (I see you hobnob with the running dog jackals and swap jokes with rat bastard capitalist swine all the freakin’ time.)
I sell them drugs.
Explains all those ‘handshakes’ through the car windows.
When I say “radical”, I’m still using it in the old fashioned pedantic sense, “to the root”, one who favors fundamental changes. Tom Paine was a radical, Tom Jefferson a centrist, and Alexander Hamilton was a nasty little bitch who deserved getting shot. And a good hard slap as well.
But my flexibility is part indifference, part uncertainty. Perhaps somebody else knows a more efficient way to get there, ok, so long as we’re pulling on the same end of the rope, I’ll listen. And the uncertainty is knowing that from where I stand in history, and as smart as I am, a lot of what that world will actually be would surprise me. I don’t preach a set agenda so much as a direction.
Which is to say, before the change can happen, a whole bunch of other stuff has to change, and then it will all be different. Which is groovy.
The guy is a conservative opportunist. His goal is to be a GOP player and aggressively spearhead the agenda you see moving forward in several states.
In every press conference I’ve seen him, his eyes are dead and his demeanor creeps me out.
His history at the previous run was no better.
I fear he has his eyes set on the Presidency. He’s showing that he’s a good little lapdog for the rich.
Well that’s something we can agree on–if “the change” comes, it will definitely “all be different.” You can see many of those differences right now in many European countries (ie, high permanent unemployment, economic stagnation caused by brain drain, etc. And etc.). But you’ve ignored these facts for so long, you’ll just keep ignoring them if they happen here.
I am enjoying the cover for the new issue of Mother Jones, “The Vampire Economy”, which you can view at the top of this page.
It rings kind of true. Taxing the rich is anathema, and so is paying a living wage for work, or even the ability to ask for a living wage. Soon keeping your own blood will be re-defined as a “handout”!
A couple of articles from Mother Jones which supports their declaration of the “Vampire Economy”:
Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin is Really About
And It’s the Inequality, Stupid- Eleven charts that explain everything that’s wrong with America
It’s another load of top 10% rubbish charts that explains exactly nothing about America, except the incessant whining of the have-not’s. :rolleyes:
It’s not that they are really all that poor, compared to “real” poverty in other parts of the world. It’s just that they don’t think they have been given their fair share of the wealth. If enough of them got off their asses and worked to make more money the charts would be different.
So how’s that Obama “spread the wealth” thing working out for you anyways? You think those disenfranchised poor will be smart enough to realize they’ve been horns-waggled once again ostensibly by their “own” political party next time around? 
I see. Data = “whining” to you. Let me guess, you’d prefer conservative think-tank talking points that don’t refer to the world of fact? :rolleyes:
Ah, so we aren’t going to make references to commonly accepted metrics of poverty. Or confine the discussion to the US. Poverty consists in what you, Nadir, consider to be “real”. Conveniently pre-packaged in quotes, thanks.
Ah, but if there is a politician-assisted transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich stretching over decades, wouldn’t you say that whether or not they “think they have been given their fair share of the wealth”, the reality is that they are being sucked dry by the vampire economy? There is more to it than merely what your strawmen think.
Ha ha. I don’t know about this one. If you’re taking a jab at me, forget it. If anybody on this board exemplifies the virtue of getting off one’s ass it is me. And I’m not complaining about not getting my fair share thank you very much. But I sympathize with people who are the victims of crooked, lycanthropic politicians who conspire to strip them of their rights in order to cut their pay to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. That’s crossing the line beyond fair competition. It amounts to ripping off people who already got off their asses, got a degree and landed a socially useful job. They’re truly lousy scapegoats.
I don’t need wealth spread my way. I’m doing fine. When did this become the subject? Anyway, I don’t think you’ve said anything meaningful about the inequality described by the charts, or its true sources.
Wait, is Obama somehow behind Walker’s union-stripping bill?
Besides that, no I doubt it, considering how many people continue to vote Republican.
I rarely post in Pit threads but this was the biggest steaming pile of bullshit I’ve ever seen. 10% “rubbish charts”? It’s called data, asshole. And yeah, those “have-nots” that have lost immense amounts and are going to lose more because some of the few safety nets the poor have are being stripped away by the GOP are just using the tactic of “incessant whining”.
And I’ve seen poverty in America, and it’s not as rosy as you and members of the GOP make it out to be. The homeless and disenfranchised in this country are many, and they are everywhere. You must have never left your little conservative rosy bubble world in your entire life if you believe this tripe you’re spouting here. I also enjoy your assertion that Obama ever proposed “spreading the wealth”, other than returning tax revenue from the richest Americans to Clinton levels. It’s called a progressive tax system and that’s how it’s supposed to work- so everyone pays their fair share, and we can actually get closer to balancing the budget.
Help yourself to some facts, man.
I have a couple of charts to add to that picture:
LIKELIHOOD OF SLEEPING WITH HELEN HUNT AT LEAST ONCE IN LIFETIME:
Bricker: **
Hank Azaria: ******************************************************
SALARY EXPECTATIONS:
Bricker: **
Bill Gates: ********************************************************
Therefore, we should immediately demand that Congress pass laws requiring Ms. Hunt to sleep with me[sup]*[/sup] and Bill Gates to give me half his wealth, so that the charts will even out a bit.
- Also, for humanitarian reasons, they’ll need to pass some sort of lifetime protection clause for me from the wrath of Mrs. Bricker.
All the women in the world, and you went with Helen Hunt?
The proportion of hot conservative celebrities is vanishingly small.
Bricker, m’lad, when it comes to legalistic pettifoggery, you have no equal on these Boards, you set the standard. And excruciating semantic parsing? Others can only gnash their teeth with futile envy.
But snarkasm? Mmm, no. No, I’m afraid not, you have the lyrics down pat, but the music eludes you.
I misread the title and thought this was about the Wisconsin strippers’ union…
(they always volunteer to help with the polling)