Loony left vs. Loonier left

[IDBillzFan]

Are you saying that a moderate is just a liberal who doesn't follow his own beliefs?

 

Here's a little trick I've learned when having (for lack of a better phrase) a conversation with Big Cat: when you start a response with "Are you saying...," you're likely going to end up chasing your tail as he just poses more questions that require more "Are you saying..." responses. It's a wicked cycle, mostly I suspect because he's not really sure what he's saying, but wants to contribute anyway.

[/dev/null]

Wow. The White House should pay attention. When Olbermann is pissed at you, he's bringing along all 27 viewers with him.

[DC Tom]

I believe that to be true for most moderates, regardless of which side of center they fall on.

 

When re-election is the true name of the game (and let's not kid ourselves), the path of least resistant is most sensible.

 

Interesting (and although I typed "liberal", I did recognize I should have specified both sides of the aisle).

 

I disagree...I think you're conflating the ideas of believing in a philosopy vs. acting in accordance with that belief, which I don't think is accurate, and thereby implying that there's no such thing as a moderate belief, only extremists, some of whom compromise their beliefts and some who don't. And I think that's simply incorrect...there are moderates in the world, and I don't think Obama becomes a moderate because he can compromise despite his liberal beliefs, I think he's a liberal and a realist who compromises despite his beliefs.

[The Big Cat]

Interesting (and although I typed "liberal", I did recognize I should have specified both sides of the aisle).

 

I disagree...I think you're conflating the ideas of believing in a philosopy vs. acting in accordance with that belief, which I don't think is accurate, and thereby implying that there's no such thing as a moderate belief, only extremists, some of whom compromise their beliefts and some who don't. And I think that's simply incorrect...there are moderates in the world, and I don't think Obama becomes a moderate because he can compromise despite his liberal beliefs, I think he's a liberal and a realist who compromises despite his beliefs.

 

I think Obama (the man) is outrageously liberal. I think Obama (the politician) is cripplingly moderate.

 

At the end of the day a politician's ideology is only as sound as his actions.

 

What compels a politicians actions most of all?

 

a.) His/her personal beliefs.

b.) The beliefs of his/her constituents.

c.) What would be most politically feasible, given the interests/actions their colleagues are most likely to support.

d.) The interests of those who contribute most to his/her election campaign(s).

 

I choose (D) because it's the option which gives a politician the best chance of keeping his/her job. And since everyone is operating on that principle, © comes in a close second.

[DC Tom]

I think Obama (the man) is outrageously liberal. I think Obama (the politician) is cripplingly moderate.

 

At the end of the day a politician's ideology is only as sound as his actions.

 

What compels a politicians actions most of all?

 

a.) His/her personal beliefs.

b.) The beliefs of his/her constituents.

c.) What would be most politically feasible, given the interests/actions their colleagues are most likely to support.

d.) The interests of those who contribute most to his/her election campaign(s).

 

I choose (D) because it's the option which gives a politician the best chance of keeping his/her job. And since everyone is operating on that principle, © comes in a close second.

 

Which clearly demonstrates what I expected - you were earlier conflating belief and action, and we have different definitions of what "makes" one "liberal" (or "conservative", or "a LaRouche Democrat", or what have you). I simply believe the beliefs define a man's position; the actions only define the a level commitment (or hypocrisy, either way). A compromising politician is not necessarily a moderate politician.

 

You simply believe differently. C'est la vie. I disagree, but only on points of my own belief, nothing concrete.

[The Big Cat]

Which clearly demonstrates what I expected - you were earlier conflating belief and action, and we have different definitions of what "makes" one "liberal" (or "conservative", or "a LaRouche Democrat", or what have you). I simply believe the beliefs define a man's position; the actions only define the a level commitment (or hypocrisy, either way). A compromising politician is not necessarily a moderate politician.

 

You simply believe differently. C'est la vie. I disagree, but only on points of my own belief, nothing concrete.

 

Right, but for all red paint being smeared on this site, how much of it is because of what Obama (in this case) has done, versus people's assumptions of his beliefs? Anyone here ever sit down and have Barack privately speak candidly about his beliefs? No? Then who here can say what his true "position" is? (by your definition)

 

I don't think any politician is forthcoming with his/her true beliefs. See: the blockage of Barack's academic works.

 

So if you had to choose A-D, I assume you'd go with C, with A coming in second?

 

a.) His/her personal beliefs.

b.) The beliefs of his/her constituents.

c.) What would be most politically feasible, given the interests/actions their colleagues are most likely to support.

d.) The interests of those who contribute most to his/her election campaign(s).

[Gary M]

Which clearly demonstrates what I expected - you were earlier conflating belief and action, and we have different definitions of what "makes" one "liberal" (or "conservative", or "a LaRouche Democrat", or what have you). I simply believe the beliefs define a man's position; the actions only define the a level commitment (or hypocrisy, either way). A compromising politician is not necessarily a moderate politician.

 

You simply believe differently. C'est la vie. I disagree, but only on points of my own belief, nothing concrete.

 

Obama asked us to judge him by the people that surround him.

 

Well this list tells me all I need to know.

 

Tim Geithner - Tax cheat

 

Kathleen Sebelius - Tax cheat

 

Tom Dascle - Tax cheat

 

Kevin Jennings - Safe School Czar - cofounder and executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), told attendees at a GLSEN conference over a decade ago that he looked forward to the day when promoting homosexuality in schools will be seen in a positive light.

 

Van Jones - Green Jobs Czar - Admitted racist, avowed communist

 

John Holdren - Science Czar - Supports FORCED Sterylization, and the drugging of drinking water

 

Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar - Wants to ban hunting, ban guns, give animals lawyers, and the right to sue. Monitor, and control internet blogging etc.

 

Mark Lloyd - FCC Diversity Czar - Hugo Chavez admirer, and racist who wants qualified whites to step down to make room for minorities and gays, AND also wants to silence free speech conservative radio, by implementing a 100% tax on talk radio operating costs..

 

Harold Koh - State Dept Legal Advisor - Says "Sharia Law could apply to disputes in US courts"

 

Adolfo Carrion - Urban Czar - Pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money.

 

Michelle Obama - Oversaw patient dumping scheme for profit, as the vice president Of University of Chicago Hospital, where she also coincidently went from 100K to over 300K promotion upon Barack Obama becoming state senator.

 

Tony Rezko - Chicago Slum lord, Convicted on 16 counts of corruption

 

Jeremiah Wright - Obama spiritual mentor 20 years, who promoted anti-government, anti-white sentiment.

 

ACORN - Corrupt federally funded organization, who Obama gave 800K to, and who Obama lawyered for, and benefitted from politically. Fraudulant voter registration drives. Recently exposed advising a pimp , and prostituute on how to bring in minors from other countries for purposes of prostitution, how to get illegal tax breaks, and how to stash away profits.

 

William Ayers - Weather Underground domestic terrorist who Obama partnered with (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) (Woods Fund) on radical left projects with the intent of indocrtinating youth.Obama also launched his bid for Chicago senate from Ayers home.

[The Big Cat]

Obama asked us to judge him by the people that surround him.

 

Well this list tells me all I need to know.

 

Tim Geithner - Tax cheat

 

Kathleen Sebelius - Tax cheat

 

Tom Dascle - Tax cheat

 

Kevin Jennings - Safe School Czar - cofounder and executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), told attendees at a GLSEN conference over a decade ago that he looked forward to the day when promoting homosexuality in schools will be seen in a positive light.

 

Van Jones - Green Jobs Czar - Admitted racist, avowed communist

 

John Holdren - Science Czar - Supports FORCED Sterylization, and the drugging of drinking water

 

Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar - Wants to ban hunting, ban guns, give animals lawyers, and the right to sue. Monitor, and control internet blogging etc.

 

Mark Lloyd - FCC Diversity Czar - Hugo Chavez admirer, and racist who wants qualified whites to step down to make room for minorities and gays, AND also wants to silence free speech conservative radio, by implementing a 100% tax on talk radio operating costs..

 

Harold Koh - State Dept Legal Advisor - Says "Sharia Law could apply to disputes in US courts"

 

Adolfo Carrion - Urban Czar - Pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money.

 

Michelle Obama - Oversaw patient dumping scheme for profit, as the vice president Of University of Chicago Hospital, where she also coincidently went from 100K to over 300K promotion upon Barack Obama becoming state senator.

 

Tony Rezko - Chicago Slum lord, Convicted on 16 counts of corruption

 

Jeremiah Wright - Obama spiritual mentor 20 years, who promoted anti-government, anti-white sentiment.

 

ACORN - Corrupt federally funded organization, who Obama gave 800K to, and who Obama lawyered for, and benefitted from politically. Fraudulant voter registration drives. Recently exposed advising a pimp , and prostituute on how to bring in minors from other countries for purposes of prostitution, how to get illegal tax breaks, and how to stash away profits.

 

William Ayers - Weather Underground domestic terrorist who Obama partnered with (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) (Woods Fund) on radical left projects with the intent of indocrtinating youth.Obama also launched his bid for Chicago senate from Ayers home.

 

Please provide the links/evidence for these outlandish declarations.

[John Adams]

Obama asked us to judge him by the people that surround him.

 

Well this list tells me all I need to know.

 

Hey look, a giant baseless copy and paste from some other Internet looney. Spread the word. !

[IDBillzFan]

Please provide the links/evidence for these outlandish declarations.

The reality is, virtually every one of those is pretty much spot on. Geithner, Sebelius and Dashle all cheated on their taxes. Most of the stuff he posts about the Czars were all dug up from their speeches, publications, etc, or court records. The only thing I had not heard or read for myself was the bit about Michelle Obama. The rest has been pretty well documented.

 

So I suspect you'll say something soon like "Jeez, I was being sarcastic when I called the ''outlandish.' "

[Magox]

Hey look, a giant baseless copy and paste from some other Internet looney. Spread the word. !

JA, it's not baseless, the majority of what he wrote is true.

 

How did you come to the assumption that it isn't? Or is this another case of your usual "holier than thou" attacks?

 

Where's Erin? I know he doesn't mind doing this sort of legwork

[IDBillzFan]

Hey look, a giant baseless copy and paste from some other Internet looney. Spread the word. !

Actually, a lot of it isn't that baseless. Skewed, maybe, but not baseless. Take Holdren, for example. It comes from a book he wrote in '77 titled "Ecoscience," in which he discusses the use of sterilants in the water as an option for reducing the number of births of children to teens or idiots. The Susstein animal rights stuff was from a paper he penned while at the Univ. of Chicago, and a speech he gave (link here) where he believes hunting should be banned and people should stop eating meat, and suggest that our treatment of animals is equivalent to "slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

 

So yeah, a lot of it is true. But I think we'd be hard-pressed to find something in anyone's history where they didn't say or do something years ago that probably sounds stupid today. In fact, I used to publish a satirical column years ago, and once penned an article called "A Swift Proposal" that suggested the way to best use people who are on death row is to replace one of their kidneys with a bomb and send them into enemy camps. Kill two birds with a stone, so to speak. While maybe 500 people saw that article, if I was mistakenly hired as another czar, I wouldn't be surprised if the left would be yelling about the freak who wanted to blow up death row inmates.

 

By the way, I still like my idea.

[Gary M]

By the way, I still like my idea.

 

Me too.

[erynthered]

JA, it's not baseless, the majority of what he wrote is true.

 

How did you come to the assumption that it isn't? Or is this another case of your usual "holier than thou" attacks?

 

Where's Erin? I know he doesn't mind doing this sort of legwork

 

 

I've been doing my PEP at work all day, all day!!....................then we had a power surge.

 

FREAKIN LOST IT ALL, MOTHER!@#$!!

 

 

c-ya later

[Magox]

I've been doing my PEP at work all day, all day!!....................then we had a power surge.

 

FREAKIN LOST IT ALL, MOTHER!@#$!!

 

 

c-ya later

Sorry bout that

 

 

sooo tomorrow?

[Chef Jim]

Sorry bout that

 

 

sooo tomorrow?

 

I was thinking more like later this evening.

[John Adams]

JA, it's not baseless, the majority of what he wrote is true.

 

How did you come to the assumption that it isn't? Or is this another case of your usual "holier than thou" attacks?

 

Where's Erin? I know he doesn't mind doing this sort of legwork

 

Even reading LA's post, do you think that John Holdren "Supports FORCED Sterylization, and the drugging of drinking water." And do you think Michelle Obama "Oversaw patient dumping scheme for profit, as the vice president Of University of Chicago Hospital," or is that presented in a slightly biased light?

 

It's not my holier-than-thou attack; it's my don't-post-stupid-stuff-you-didn't-write attack, especially when the copied-and-pasted material had nothing to do with the point being made.

[Alaska Darin]

Under my skin? Do you take this board personally?

 

But guess what sweet cheeks, the only one's crying LIBERAL! (since he's taken office) are pissed off righties.

Mostly because lefties have absolutely no basis in reality, regardless of subject matter. Don't let that stop your roll, though.

[The Big Cat]

Actually, a lot of it isn't that baseless. Skewed, maybe, but not baseless. Take Holdren, for example. It comes from a book he wrote in '77 titled "Ecoscience," in which he discusses the use of sterilants in the water as an option for reducing the number of births of children to teens or idiots. The Susstein animal rights stuff was from a paper he penned while at the Univ. of Chicago, and a speech he gave (link here) where he believes hunting should be banned and people should stop eating meat, and suggest that our treatment of animals is equivalent to "slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

 

So yeah, a lot of it is true. But I think we'd be hard-pressed to find something in anyone's history where they didn't say or do something years ago that probably sounds stupid today. In fact, I used to publish a satirical column years ago, and once penned an article called "A Swift Proposal" that suggested the way to best use people who are on death row is to replace one of their kidneys with a bomb and send them into enemy camps. Kill two birds with a stone, so to speak. While maybe 500 people saw that article, if I was mistakenly hired as another czar, I wouldn't be surprised if the left would be yelling about the freak who wanted to blow up death row inmates.

 

By the way, I still like my idea.

 

I'd rather it be totally made up than skewed. At least we're keeping the agnotolgists at work!