The Audacity of the Democrats

[alienlovechild 75]

McCain was never in the far right in the Republican Party and has been at odds with Bush on a lot of issues. By contrast, Obama had no real ideological disagreements with Hilliary. Hmm, the country moved right in the early 1990s but voted for Clinton anyway? Do you know what you're saying? Was it a case of reverse voter psychology on a grand scale? The New Deal was a public relations stunt that never significantly reduced unemployment.

Check out congressional ratings and you'll get some conflicting voting records.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf

I read that National Journal piece - while they're all gung-ho on labelling Obama the biggest Liberal in history (mainly because he voted with the party on a lot of issues), you'll perhaps note (or not) that there are a few problems with their methodology.

Not only that but you might also note (or not. Probably) that they don't give Mr McCain a score at all because he missed more than half the votes.

Oh, I noted McCain missed a lot of votes by campaigning but that's not unusual in a presidential campaign. Unlike some, I read what I post. The Nat'l Journal only rates current members of Congress so the claim they are lableing him the biggest liberal ever is incorrect. I even gave you some extra ammo with the ADA link but you didn't read it. That's a pity. If you had read and understood the political compass website you'd see Obama was the biggest lefty except for Edwards. That's not a right wing site and it gives a Euro political slant to everything. Also by that scale McCain was clearly the furthest left of any of the Republicans which destroys your mirror image theory of political extremism. Both American parties went left which makes McCain more of a centrist and Obama more of an extremist compared to the majority of their respective parties.

Edited June 11, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain was never in the far right in the Republican Party and has been at odds with Bush on a lot of issues. By contrast, Obama had no real ideological disagreements with Hilliary. Hmm, the country moved right in the early 1990s but voted for Clinton anyway? Do you know what you're saying? Was it a case of reverse voter psychology on a grand scale? The New Deal was a public relations stunt that never significantly reduced unemployment.

Check out congressional ratings and you'll get some conflicting voting records.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf

I read that National Journal piece - while they're all gung-ho on labelling Obama the biggest Liberal in history (mainly because he voted with the party on a lot of issues), you'll perhaps note (or not) that there are a few problems with their methodology.

Not only that but you might also note (or not. Probably) that they don't give Mr McCain a score at all because he missed more than half the votes.

Oh, I noted McCain missed a lot of votes by campaigning but that's not unusual in a presidential campaign. Unlike some, I read what I post. The Nat'l Journal only rates current members of Congress so the claim they are lableing him the biggest liberal ever is incorrect. I even gave you some extra ammo with the ADA link but you didn't read it. That's a pity. If you had read and understood the political compass website you'd see Obama was the biggest lefty except for Edwards. That's not a right wing site and it gives a Euro political slant to everything. Also by that scale McCain was clearly the furthest left of any of the Republicans which destroys your mirror image theory of political extremism. Both American parties went left which makes McCain more of a centrist and Obama more of an extremist compared to the majority of their respective parties.

Well dispensing with the patronisms (I really don't need links to politics 101 websites - anymore than I need links to dictionary definitions) - I never said (anywhere) that I thought or think that McCain is a right wing extremist. That was never and isn't my view at all - and my views on his candidacy have nothing to do with stereotypical generalisations of how "conservative" he is, or not. It seems you're like many others here who bases their view not on what someone actually says but according to the preconceived idea of what you think "that type of person" should say.

I'm also not sure I appreciate your apparently clairvoyant assertions as to what I have or haven't read - or that somehow the only interpretation that can be reached is your own. Conceited doesn't quite cover it really...

As I say - the fact remains that you want to participate in a discussion about an article that you admit you haven't read, seizing on others comments to leverage yourself into the topic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh, I noted McCain missed a lot of votes by campaigning but that's not unusual in a presidential campaign.

Sure. Obama missed a bunch too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't you feel funny to be labeling a voting record as far left while not having any quips over a voting record that would be considered far right? You (and a few others) keep getting tripped over your ideological viewpoint on issues that your blind to the reality of what American voters want or are willing to try at this point in time. I remember in the early 90's, the country had moved more to the right in terms of many policy issues, but laying stake in that notion is reckless. FDR would have never been able to pull off the New Deal (talk about a leftist policy) without the will of the people and it was what our country needed at that time. You can try to argue over the merits of whether a particular policy is valid or not, but the idea that American voters will shy away from a policy or even a candidate based on ideology is fruitless. It's the sign of the times and this time in our history is not 1994.

McCain was never in the far right in the Republican Party and has been at odds with Bush on a lot of issues. By contrast, Obama had no real ideological disagreements with Hilliary. Hmm, the country moved right in the early 1990s but voted for Clinton anyway? Do you know what you're saying? Was it a case of reverse voter psychology on a grand scale? The New Deal was a public relations stunt that never significantly reduced unemployment.

Check out congressional ratings and you'll get some conflicting voting records.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf

So you're equally repulsed by far right or conservative voting trends of any candidate? I think you missed my point...liberal voting records aren't any more a stain on a candidate's reputation than a conservative voting record in the minds of most voting Americans...at least in this point in history. Context is everything. FDR's New Deal was welcomed by Americans in a time when they felt they had nothing else to turn to. I realize some hardcore rightwingers contend that FDR did a disservice to this country with the New Deal, but for most reasonably minded Americans who know enough about that part in history, have a positive view that government can and should address some of society's problems. Fear mongering and the Red Scare just isn't going to push Americans into voting for McCain. They are looking at the problems we are facing today and want solutions. Obama's voting record in the eyes of the American voter will be measured based on the merits of each individual piece of legislation, not whether that legislation he voted for has been labelled, 'liberal'.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[GaryC 7]

Don't you feel funny to be labeling a voting record as far left while not having any quips over a voting record that would be considered far right? You (and a few others) keep getting tripped over your ideological viewpoint on issues that your blind to the reality of what American voters want or are willing to try at this point in time. I remember in the early 90's, the country had moved more to the right in terms of many policy issues, but laying stake in that notion is reckless. FDR would have never been able to pull off the New Deal (talk about a leftist policy) without the will of the people and it was what our country needed at that time. You can try to argue over the merits of whether a particular policy is valid or not, but the idea that American voters will shy away from a policy or even a candidate based on ideology is fruitless. It's the sign of the times and this time in our history is not 1994.

McCain was never in the far right in the Republican Party and has been at odds with Bush on a lot of issues. By contrast, Obama had no real ideological disagreements with Hilliary. Hmm, the country moved right in the early 1990s but voted for Clinton anyway? Do you know what you're saying? Was it a case of reverse voter psychology on a grand scale? The New Deal was a public relations stunt that never significantly reduced unemployment.

Check out congressional ratings and you'll get some conflicting voting records.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf

So you're equally repulsed by far right or conservative voting trends of any candidate? I think you missed my point...liberal voting records aren't any more a stain on a candidate's reputation than a conservative voting record in the minds of most voting Americans...at least in this point in history. Context is everything. FDR's New Deal was welcomed by Americans in a time when they felt they had nothing else to turn to. I realize some hardcore rightwingers contend that FDR did a disservice to this country with the New Deal, but for most reasonably minded Americans who know enough about that part in history, have a positive view that government can and should address some of society's problems. Fear mongering and the Red Scare just isn't going to push Americans into voting for McCain. They are looking at the problems we are facing today and want solutions. Obama's voting record in the eyes of the American voter will be measured based on the merits of each individual piece of legislation, not whether that legislation he voted for has been labelled, 'liberal'.

What a total boat load of BS! Do you really believe the tripe you keep shoveling out? The New Deal prolonged the depression for your information. Much of it was declared unconstitutional.

Obama doesn't just have a liberal voting record. He has the hardest left voting record of any current senator. By anyones definition that makes him a radical. Quit trying to sound like some sort of a political science teacher Steven. Your not pulling it off very well. And the BS your shoveling isn't covering up the stench of Obama.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or the stench of some of these op-ed threads.

[Sinergy 3]

Don't you feel funny to be labeling a voting record as far left while not having any quips over a voting record that would be considered far right? You (and a few others) keep getting tripped over your ideological viewpoint on issues that your blind to the reality of what American voters want or are willing to try at this point in time. I remember in the early 90's, the country had moved more to the right in terms of many policy issues, but laying stake in that notion is reckless. FDR would have never been able to pull off the New Deal (talk about a leftist policy) without the will of the people and it was what our country needed at that time. You can try to argue over the merits of whether a particular policy is valid or not, but the idea that American voters will shy away from a policy or even a candidate based on ideology is fruitless. It's the sign of the times and this time in our history is not 1994.

McCain was never in the far right in the Republican Party and has been at odds with Bush on a lot of issues. By contrast, Obama had no real ideological disagreements with Hilliary. Hmm, the country moved right in the early 1990s but voted for Clinton anyway? Do you know what you're saying? Was it a case of reverse voter psychology on a grand scale? The New Deal was a public relations stunt that never significantly reduced unemployment.

Check out congressional ratings and you'll get some conflicting voting records.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings...o2=desc#results

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf

So you're equally repulsed by far right or conservative voting trends of any candidate? I think you missed my point...liberal voting records aren't any more a stain on a candidate's reputation than a conservative voting record in the minds of most voting Americans...at least in this point in history. Context is everything. FDR's New Deal was welcomed by Americans in a time when they felt they had nothing else to turn to. I realize some hardcore rightwingers contend that FDR did a disservice to this country with the New Deal, but for most reasonably minded Americans who know enough about that part in history, have a positive view that government can and should address some of society's problems. Fear mongering and the Red Scare just isn't going to push Americans into voting for McCain. They are looking at the problems we are facing today and want solutions. Obama's voting record in the eyes of the American voter will be measured based on the merits of each individual piece of legislation, not whether that legislation he voted for has been labelled, 'liberal'.

What a total boat load of BS! Do you really believe the tripe you keep shoveling out? The New Deal prolonged the depression for your information. Much of it was declared unconstitutional.

Obama doesn't just have a liberal voting record. He has the hardest left voting record of any current senator. By anyones definition that makes him a radical. Quit trying to sound like some sort of a political science teacher Steven. Your not pulling it off very well. And the BS your shoveling isn't covering up the stench of Obama.

I can say the same for you Gary, as well as not smelling the stench of McCain or other reps for that matter.

You post these nonsense posts to get insight on other vjer's yet when they give you their insight, you insult them by saying the bolded.

[rclouse 0]

Sorry, still not voting for McSame.

[GaryC 7]

Sorry, still not voting for McSame.

Yeah I know, you would rather vote for the messiah.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Sorry, still not voting for McSame.

Yeah I know, you would rather vote for the messiah.

Now on your knees! he shall guide you.

Edited June 11, 2008 by ={Rogue}=

[alienlovechild 75]

Well dispensing with the patronisms (I really don't need links to politics 101 websites - anymore than I need links to dictionary definitions) - I never said (anywhere) that I thought or think that McCain is a right wing extremist.

I'm also not sure I appreciate your apparently clairvoyant assertions as to what I have or haven't read - or that somehow the only interpretation that can be reached is your own. Conceited doesn't quite cover it really...

As I say - the fact remains that you want to participate in a discussion about an article that you admit you haven't read, seizing on others comments to leverage yourself into the topic.

If you could follow a thread properly you'd see I was quoting Jabbawonky not you, 6.

I don't need any superpowers to ascertain when someone pretends to read something then can't seem to muster a sentence on the content. The ADA link would have helped you out but of course you, uh, um cough, cough, read the whole thing but didn't mention it. Come on, 6. You must have made up a lot of book reports when you were school. Who cares about an article NOBODY even bothered to quote once in a long thread (exception was with Dog on Marx or was it Marx on Dog- no difference)? If they read it they didn't understand it enough to muster a response.

[zqt3344 21]

HAHAHA GaryC!

Sorry, still not voting for McSame.

Yeah I know, you would rather vote for the messiah.

No he just abstains from voting whenever it is a tough vote is all.

Oh, I noted McCain missed a lot of votes by campaigning but that's not unusual in a presidential campaign.

Sure. Obama missed a bunch too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you could follow a thread properly you'd see I was quoting Jabbawonky not you, 6.

I don't need any superpowers to ascertain when someone pretends to read something then can't seem to muster a sentence on the content. The ADA link would have helped you out but of course you, uh, um cough, cough, read the whole thing but didn't mention it. Come on, 6. You must have made up a lot of book reports when you were school. Who cares about an article NOBODY even bothered to quote once in a long thread (exception was with Dog on Marx or was it Marx on Dog- no difference)? If they read it they didn't understand it enough to muster a response.

Again with the patronisms. There seems to be a theme here doesn't there...

Well first off - its a public forum, if you want to have a "private" discussion where noone else chips in - this is what Private Messages are for. So lets drop that silly angle - thank you very much.

And to reiterate, once again. I did read the article. And once again - whether you believe me or not is totally irrelevant to me - seeing as you yourself admitted to blatantly not reading it at all. Given that - it requires some audacity to attack the arguments made against it when by your own admission you don't know what it is about. Weird.

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't see it that weird at all, 6. It is more of a modus operandi for certain folk that are looking for higher daily post ratios to blurt anything out, even if it doesn't agree with common sense or reality for that matter. Press on.

[zqt3344 21]

How come Ovomit never wears a USA flag lapel pin? Is he anti-American and unpatriotic? And how come he will not put his hand over his heart and pledge allegiance to the USA flag?

If you could follow a thread properly you'd see I was quoting Jabbawonky not you, 6.

I don't need any superpowers to ascertain when someone pretends to read something then can't seem to muster a sentence on the content. The ADA link would have helped you out but of course you, uh, um cough, cough, read the whole thing but didn't mention it. Come on, 6. You must have made up a lot of book reports when you were school. Who cares about an article NOBODY even bothered to quote once in a long thread (exception was with Dog on Marx or was it Marx on Dog- no difference)? If they read it they didn't understand it enough to muster a response.

Again with the patronisms. There seems to be a theme here doesn't there...

Well first off - its a public forum, if you want to have a "private" discussion where noone else chips in - this is what Private Messages are for. So lets drop that silly angle - thank you very much.

And to reiterate, once again. I did read the article. And once again - whether you believe me or not is totally irrelevant to me - seeing as you yourself admitted to blatantly not reading it at all. Given that - it requires some audacity to attack the arguments made against it when by your own admission you don't know what it is about. Weird.