ExiledInIllinois Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Extremist .... extremely extremist. What is the difference between "radical"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Would you classify Bush and Palin as radical? This question is not for you specifically but more for anyone who wishes to respond. What do you call an administration that suspends habeus corpus and has to have the Supreme Court tell them it's illegal before they stopped doing it, Wiretapped it's own citizens without warrants and lied about it more than once, Intruded on a family decision about whether or not to pull the plug on a completely brain dead woman with their legal powers, would only accept guilty pleas from prisoners of war, had to stop the Vice President from destroying documents, gave multi billion dollar contracts to firm the Vice President has a financial stake in and I'm sure there's some other crap I'm forgetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 This question is not for you specifically but more for anyone who wishes to respond. What do you call an administration that suspends habeus corpus and has to have the Supreme Court tell them it's illegal before they stopped doing it, Wiretapped it's own citizens without warrants and lied about it more than once, Intruded on a family decision about whether or not to pull the plug on a completely brain dead woman with their legal powers, would only accept guilty pleas from prisoners of war, had to stop the Vice President from destroying documents, gave multi billion dollar contracts to firm the Vice President has a financial stake in and I'm sure there's some other crap I'm forgetting. Spoiled brats with power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Did you hear Stern say last week how he wasn't sure if he wanted to vote for Obama but he felt he was forced to now because of Sarah Palin? Yep. I sympathize. Not sure I sympathize enough to vote Obama but I sure am afraid of VP Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 It used to be there was such a thing as conservatives, liberals and moderates. The Republicans have changed that to conservatives and liberals. I have no idea how they define a moderate other than someone who agrees very close to 99% with them. Somebody laughed really hard and thought I was out of my mind for calling The Wall Street Journal a conservative paper and they referred to CNN as the Communist News Network. You need to take a long hard look at the Democrats and Republicans and revisit this polarization bull sh--. The two parties hav way more similarities than differences. They may refuse to work together on some issues but they agree on 90% of things. I don't think of the WSJ as "Republican" conservative. It's the best paper I read, and has some Conservative (read: Capitalist) bias. I read the NY Times too and the WSJ is nowhere near as conservative as the NY Times is liberal. CNN, to me, is the most objective of the major news networks. FOX is totally absurd and is the Colbert Report without the joke. MSNBC is similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Would you classify Bush and Palin as radical? Actually yes, as is Obama, hence why I like guys like McCain and Lieberman, who actually will go against their party to get work done. Radicals are stubborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Actually yes, as is Obama, hence why I like guys like McCain and Lieberman, who actually will go against their party to get work done. Radicals are stubborn. Ya... But... Palin is inches away from being Prez if one votes for McCain. If we are to have a radical in, why not a new one that will swing the thing back at least? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Does it scare you that the Republicans actually nominated GDB twice? Yes, as did the lack of qualified opposition both in and out of the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Ya... But... Palin is inches away from being Prez if one votes for McCain. If we are to have a radical in, why not a new one that will swing the thing back at least? Because it's the top of the ticket that matters, I'm tired of the heartbeat away stuff. If I did care, I'd rather have a radical fighting to keep things closer to the same as today than one who will change everything, ya know? I'm tired of the far right and far left hijacking the parties, I feel like a McCain win would balance it out more and show that a moderate can win and encourage others to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 get work done. If I could have submitted a question to McCain last night it would have been this: Senator, in your three decades in Washington, please give me three (3) examples of legislation you sponsored that became law and explain how it helped the average American. I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for a response, 'tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 You need to take a long hard look at the Democrats and Republicans and revisit this polarization bull sh--. The two parties hav way more similarities than differences. They may refuse to work together on some issues but they agree on 90% of things. I don't think of the WSJ as "Republican" conservative. It's the best paper I read, and has some Conservative (read: Capitalist) bias. I read the NY Times too and the WSJ is nowhere near as conservative as the NY Times is liberal. CNN, to me, is the most objective of the major news networks. FOX is totally absurd and is the Colbert Report without the joke. MSNBC is similar. You really believe on social issues they're close? I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 You really believe on social issues they're close? I disagree. Mostly because you choose to ignore the data and believe the rhetoric. Back to the original topic: Yeah, I want another intellectual in the Oval Office. You know, like Jimmy Carter. That dude was wicked smart. You people are awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Mostly because you choose to ignore the data and believe the rhetoric. Back to the original topic: Yeah, I want another intellectual in the Oval Office. You know, like Jimmy Carter. That dude was wicked smart. You people are awesome. We get the leaders we deserve, I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Mostly because you choose to ignore the data and believe the rhetoric.Back to the original topic: Yeah, I want another intellectual in the Oval Office. You know, like Jimmy Carter. That dude was wicked smart. You people are awesome. So you think they see eye to eye on abortion issues, gun control, health care, what the Constitution does and doesn't allow the President to do, stem cell research and tax issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 So you think they see eye to eye on abortion issues, gun control, health care, what the Constitution does and doesn't allow the President to do, stem cell research and tax issues? Thanks for proving my point on the rhetoric. When did the Constitution and gun control become social issues? Let me go ahead and guarantee right now that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats will offer NO meaningful gun legislation during his tenure. They've learned their lesson. They'll whine a lot but they'll do nothing - it's their mantra. Mr. Obama's "clinging to their bibles and guns" comment is probably the largest reason he's not enjoying a double digit lead everywhere. And the abortion "debate" is completely bankrupt fear mongering. Neither party will EVER touch it legislatively or from the Executive because they're not stupid. As far as health care goes, advocating central control is pretty much the cornerstone both sides are offering. It may not be what's at the forefront but it is the endgame, if you're smart enough to see the trend. Taxes: Both of them suck and pretty much for the same reason. Stem cell research: Check out all the work the Dems have done on it since they took over Congress. Yeah, I'm sure it's because of Parliamentary issues. But keep buying into the "100% correct/100% wrong" politics that are ruining this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 So you think they see eye to eye on abortion issues, gun control, health care, what the Constitution does and doesn't allow the President to do, stem cell research and tax issues? On some (health care, tax issues) they are almost identical. The Dems want more health care is the only difference. Both concede that it's the government's job to provide it. The difference is a matter of degree. On taxes, I am not sure there's a difference except in rhetoric. Republicans mostly want a little less tax but to spend more. Dems want to tax more and spend more. Abortion is a "who cares" issue. It affects few and most legislators won't touch it. Ditto guns. Stem cell research, again, is not that different except for some loons on the right, not to mention technology will probably wipe that debate off the map. Schools, welfare, drug war, and many other issues...the parties only differ on points just to be different. On questions like: government size reduction, fiscal responsibility, limiting powers, following the Constitution, etc., they are in lockstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 On some (health care, tax issues) they are almost identical. The Dems want more health care is the only difference. Both concede that it's the government's job to provide it. The difference is a matter of degree. On taxes, I am not sure there's a difference except in rhetoric. Republicans mostly want a little less tax but to spend more. Dems want to tax more and spend more. Abortion is a "who cares" issue. It affects few and most legislators won't touch it. Ditto guns. Stem cell research, again, is not that different except for some loons on the right, not to mention technology will probably wipe that debate off the map. Schools, welfare, drug war, and many other issues...the parties only differ on points just to be different. On questions like: government size reduction, fiscal responsibility, limiting powers, following the Constitution, etc., they are in lockstep. Do you live in this country and pay any attention to politics? Abortion and Stem cell research are huge issues with radicals on either side. It was one of the biggest issues in confirming Roberts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBSS151 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 No, I was for Obama over Hillary, whom I believe to be very smart, but also a frequent liar who says things even she doesn't believe one bit at times, and will stoop to depths I cannot support. A lot like Bill, but worse. One Difference - Hillary knows she is lying Obama has an issue with what "truth" is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I'm tired of the far right and far left hijacking the parties You can't be all that tired of it, considering you eagerly support a party that was hijacked by far right wing religious fundamentalist whackjobs years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 And the abortion "debate" is completely bankrupt fear mongering. Neither party will EVER touch it legislatively or from the Executive because they're not stupid. Abortion is a "who cares" issue. It affects few and most legislators won't touch it. We'll see. Obama told Planned Parenthood that his 1st act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (introduced 1st in 2007) that strips every single state law regulating abortion that more than 70% of the states have enacted. I relish that debate. If the press had any !@#$ing balls what-so-ever - they would press this "intelligent man" to explain how he would not have supported the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill that passed 98-0 in the Senate (including support by Barbara Boxer) and how he voted against it 3x as a state senator in Illinois. There is no law, no funding restriction, not even restrictions protecting a live baby separated from their mother that this extremist (by any definition of the word) would support. He is a radical's radical and I think you will see that bill come up for a vote, though I doubt it will ever reach his desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts