What have the Republicans won? A chance to dig a deeper hole for themselfs.

38 posts / 0 new

Just like Bush,everything they touch is bad for the people.Progressives can help them dig the hole,by showing they care about nothing but themselfs.Their addiction to power and the money god makes them "blind". They stole the election,they will learn cheaters never win,they only win to lose big time.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Well, enough Dems share neo-liberalism and the failed theories of the Chicago School of Economics to help them dig the hole.

Obama has shown with his selection of economic adivors that he'll help them dig it..Bush's Head of athe Fed is obama's Head of the Fed. Bernanke remains the governments Chief Economic twit

Maybe a complete meltdown sooner rather than later will entail change sooner rather than later.

Take up gardening. Food stamps are insufficient.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yep - This "win" for Republicans has pretty much guaranteed a future Democratic president for the 2012 ticket. The economy in the US is going to start showing some pretty severe signs of failure obvious to EVERYONE by the time this next election comes around, and the truth is there's *nothing* that Democrats OR Republicans (or anyone) can do to really keep it from happening. It's actually very fortunate for the Left that they lost the majority, because they'll be able to blame this mess on Republicans all over again.

(On the contrast, let's say Democrats DID win, hell, let's say they picked up even MORE seats. The result would be the same - economy starts Nose-diving anyway. THEN the Liberals would have a huge mess on their hands because it would have likely guaranteed a Republican president again as the whole country would blame the Democrats for screwing it all up)

Obama talks about "If you want to go forward, you put the car in 'D' - if you wanna go backward, you put it in 'R'" - what he fails to realize is that the car's rolling down a hill into towards a lake with a blown trans and no brakes anyway. It doesn't matter what gear you put the damn thing in. These twits can play the blame game all day long but Democrats AND Republicans need to look in the mirror if they want to see who to blame.

They've both equally destroyed this economy.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

Poly and Cheese,I agree with you,i would add,it`s good to be a garderner all the time.Obama,knows he can call on the "people with the pitch-forks",the economic kings knows this too.The rulers know the people know the system don`t work.They can start another bubble anytime they want,but whatever they do,they`re afraid of the people with a little money in their pocket will really get rid of the "corrupt politicians".Lesson learn from Obama,he got big money,but only after the rulers seen all the little money he got.The question is,how do the rulers keep power and a bankrupt ideology working and avoid revolution? Politics won`t answer this question,economics will.Some good news,progressive rich and businesses are stepping up.They see the "writting on the wall"! They need to see "economic democracy" as a solution.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Actually, I think the bankers destroyed the economy,though they do buy both sides of the aisle, and buying the judicial branch was especially profitable. Both sides of the aisle could have gotten behind the people, and spurned a recovery, through a stimulus that was determined to be spent. Republicans do want the country to fail, because they want the power. I was pleased that the blue dogs got beat in an even higher percentage.

One possible solution will be to test the Laffer curve theory. Laffer says that companies will not spend if they see a tax cut coming and will wait for it. That also should apply in reverse, their taxes are going up, per law, so if it is best to spend when taxes are low, that would be now! Didn't happen did it, which I think disproves Laffer's theory. Maybe he can revise it to state companies will always layoff and hoarde under democrats. Historically, the market economy has always done better under democrats, but history is no guarantee of future performance. Republicans seem to create a lot of work for FBI fraud division, but that enforcement part gets cut under republicans, too. So Laffer revision is, embezzle and defraud under republicans, spend money only on graft, bribes, and fake grass roots under democrats. Steal pensions under both.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Actually, I think the bankers destroyed the economy,though they do buy both sides of the aisle,

I can agree that much of this mess can be attributed to the actions of bankers, but these actions would have never been take if they had not been given so much access to so much free credit from the FED and had our government NOT guaranteed mortgages. The awful loans and predatory lending that occured was only happening becuase the government made it a win-win situation for the banks.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

Two things. Fannie Mae should never have been privatized as a for-profit entity. They became under the same obligation to increase shareholder earnings as any bankster.They bought toxic financial waste hoping to make a bundle.

Second: If the mortgages had actually been guaranteed by government, there would have been no "defaults". Government would have paid the mortgages and derivatives plays never would have been triggered requiring trillions in direct bailouts and guarantees to banksters and financiers. A mere $80 billion would have nipped it in the bud.

However, that would have been direct aid to Main Street rather than Wall Street. Main Street has no voice in government. Wall Street speaks with a megaphone. Modest losses by derivative gamblers on the winning side of the bets were unacceptable. Derivatives are bought for pennies on the dollar.

Banksters and financiers once again made out like bandits on the back of the taxpayers, just like they did in the Mexican Bond bailout.

The Insanity of the Giveway - Michael Hudson, economist.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson09252008.html

Republicans will dig a deeper hole faster than the Dems, but the hole is for the nation, not the Republican Party. They have the Patriot Act and the army to keep them from falling into the national grave. Dems will hide behind Republican shirt tails.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The government has no foresight beyond a couple years, maybe an entire election cycle. The guarantees they made were in assumption that there wouldn't be many defaults to begin with, because they didn't understand the gravity of the moral hazards they were creating.

When these mortgages started failing in tremendous numbers, the real weight of guaranteeing these failed mortgages became painfully apparent to the government and the realization that actually following through with their promises would amount to Trillions of dollars spent on making the loans whole.

Naturally, instead of blaming themselves, they blame "free markets". It's amazing how they can stimulate their way out of a recession by creating a bubble and say "See - if we had Free Markets, we'd be in a recession, thank god we were able to sidestep it with our monetary policies!" Then when the bubble pops, they completely ignore the fact that they inflated the bubble in the first place and go off saying "See - it's because we had Free Markets that we had this mess."

A Free Market would have never led to this catastrophe.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

Nah. Had they addressed the immediate defaults, the housing market wouldn't have melted down. The economy wouldn't have begun collapsing, and foreclosures wouldn't have intensified. The cost...about $80 billion. Not trillions.

Defaults would have been limited mostly to sub-prime loans Current prime loans wouldn't have entered into the fray. The more the economy melts down...the greater the number of foreclosures will be.

Bailing Wall Street rather than Main Street was a boo boo...and fits the ideology.

QUOTE:

Banks cannot make money ad infinitum by selling more and more credit – that is, indebting the non-financial economy more and more. Government officials such as Treasury Secretary Paulson or Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke are professionally unable to acknowledge this problem, and it does not appear in most neoclassical or monetarist textbooks. But the underlying mathematics of compound interest are rediscovered in each generation, often prompted by the force majeur of financial crisis.

"Governments ostensibly representing “free market” philosophy are acting as the lender of last resort – not to households and business non-financial debtors, and not to wipe out the debt overhang in a Clean Slate, but to subsidize the excess of financial claims over and above the economy’s ability to pay and the market value of assets pledged as collateral.

This attempt is necessarily in vain. No amount of money can sustain the exponential growth of debt, not to mention the freely created credit and mutual gambles on derivatives and other financial claims whose volume has exploded in recent years. The government is committed to “bailing out” banks and other creditors whose loans and swaps have gone bad. It remains in denial with regard to the debt deflation that must be imposed on the rest of the economy to “make good” on these financial trends.

Despite Paulson’s and Ms. Bair’s characterization of the present crisis as merely a liquidity problem, it is really a debt problem. The volume of real estate debt, auto debt, student loans, bank debt, pension debts by municipalities and states as well as private companies exceed their ability to pay. - Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson10202008.html

"Faced by a failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more mone". - FDR. We've been here before.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I thought this thread was of the "Be careful what you wish for" sort, which I agree with, but all of the replies are cynical debasements of our dysfunctional political system. Even Tay who started this thread agrees. I guess the lesson if these comments are correct is that maybe there isn't much for either party to win anymore, that we are a nation in the process of an inevitable collapse. What a sad commentary on the state of American politics and our nation which is supposedly the world's leader. I don't believe that America's collapse is inevitable. However, we do need to recalibrate and get a major dose of humility.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Lefty,you`re right with your post,but i think most of us would agree there is a cancer in America that need to collapse and die.And most of us don`t want die from the sickness,and want to live.I started the thread to give hope and a warning,hope is turning a negative into a positive,warning the winners they have won nothing if it`s the "same-o".I hope this thread is a little help in stopping the "cancer".(The Money Kings/Gods)

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The 'Republicans' won a chance at honoring constitutional authority, to put our 'republican form of government' back on track to constitutional limits on governmental power and reduce the influence government has over our lives.

The tyranny of 'Democracy' where 51 votes and the government can tell US citizens whatever it damn well wants to, this needs to end. When the TSA strip searches Americans while leaving Muslims unmolested, some could argue that the terrorists have won simply because our own government has turned against us. In so many ways we no longer represent 'Republican' values, only mob rule...and the democrats are the leaders of the mob to undermine our Republic by introducing more socialism into our republican form of government without going thru the Art. V. Amendment process. Progressives twist and bend the constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean....example H.R. 3590...the constitution does not give congress the power to force citizens to buy private health insurance but the democrats forced that very unconstitutional Bill upon the American People.

Hopefully the 'Republicans' will put America on the right track again, only time will tell.

I see the Democrats digging a deeper hole for themselves by not admitting the truth about why they failed, progressivism. The American people rejected progressivism, pure and simple.

Live with it!

GreenLanthorn's picture
GreenLanthorn
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2010 12:01 pm

What a projectionfest! In the first place, the Republicans have been gung ho for empire, so the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Bush gave us TSA and DIA and the whole "9/11 changed everything" bs, and it is the Dems who are for big intrusive government? Give me a break!

Second, the idiotic idea that the Founders gave us a democracy we could not use because of the limits on government is pure fantasy. Right up there with let the "free market" work. The only government these conservatives oppose seems to be that which could serve the common good and provide some decent human services and social infrastructure. They love the property protectors and the global warriors for corporate bottom lines. When conservatives will take on their economic license and show some respect for the idea of governing ourselves for the common good, we will find agreement on opposition to tyranny and top-down authoritarian models, like corporate for example.

Third, the punditry that attempts to parse "the message" given by the electorate in this past election has very little idea what happened or why. There is no core consensus or rational policy position to be found. Fear and money had more to do with results than policy differences. What Obama had done was messaged out by the Right, and what they said he was doing was devoid of any factual basis.

I think it makes as much sense to regard the backwash from O8 as the reaction of people who have decided to give up drinking or drugs, and who do not respond well to the first therapeutic intervention. In this case, we were not challenged to face our need to change and were only given the chance to dream of change without any "change" in us. Progressives either knew that the system would not deliver or were hoping that the movement for reform was a return to sanity that would continue.

It is hard to see how any politician could make us confront what we want to avoid. It is we who have to push for the change that makes us confront how we have been part of what went so terribly wrong. There are more than many who will resist all intervention and all attempts to dislodge their ideological defenses. They will be desperate and passionate even when they have nothing left but bluster.

Successful therapies often take several attempts. Therapy is about facing stuff you have hidden, ignored or perverted, including being the good martyr who makes things better for everyone else without getting what you need. At some point, other people pay for our moral heroism unless we deal with its passive aggressive and moral treasury components. Resentments fester. Obama gets it both for being too threatening and for being too mild. Much as I would like the Progressive confrontation script for my own emotional satisfaction, I think we are in for tougher sledding than reformers see. This is about serious rehab and change, not just putting the old system back into place or even "cleaning it up."

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Green,the only honor republicans have is "Dog Eat Dog".You people need to go back to the "Stone-Age".Government/civilization/progress mean nothing to you republicans.DRC,i wish you all the luck in the world trying to talk sense with these people,i rather talk to a wall,i don`t waste my time.DRC,as always i agree 100% with you,i would add,i try to focus on the main cause of the mess.We get to the root of the problem,we get rid of mess.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The root problem is giving those in power, too much power.

If you give a room full of kids a years worth of candy, and a years worth of vegetables, (making 2 years worth of food) and make them live in that room for only year - which pile do you think will be relatively untouched by the end of the year?

Of course the parents would complain about the poor health of the kids and the fact that their teeth are rotting out of their skulls. So do you blame the candy? Do you blame the vegetables for not being appealing enough?

Of course not. It was the fact that the kids had the opportunity to take advantage of the candy in the first place. Candy is of course an acceptable treat, something that is fine and dandy in small quantities... but when too much freedom to eat up that candy is made available - the kids WILL go for it.

The same goes for Congress, for politicians, for government. They do need to have specific amounts of power. They do need to have the ability to make decisions. But when we provide them with too much freedom to make decisions, this power will eventually find it's way into other areas that it was never intended to see (Corporations, for example). All of the wise choices to eat the vegetables get pushed aside because politicians can make promises of candy to the rest of the country. And when the cavities form and vitamin deficiencies arise, they'll go off and blame the candy manufacturers for making a dangerous product at a profit, instead of themselves for tricking people into thinking that a few hundred people in the government knew what was better for the millions and millions of people around them.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

Tay, I am glad you see my point. I thought this post was about giving us progressives more hope, too.

Frankly, despite Greenlanthorn's conservative-oriented assessment, it seems clear to me that this election was not a repudiation of progressivism. How could it be? We haven't even tried progressivism. If he think Obama is being progressive, he doesn't know what true progressivism is. He sounds like that Monica Crowley character on the McLaughlin Group, who thinks Obama is ultra-liberal no matter how much he kowtows to right-wing pressure. They just keep repeating the same lies, and people like Greenlanthorn believe it. Plus, it's only been 2 years. It makes a lot more sense to say that the 2006 and 2008 elections were a repudiation of conservatism.

DRC wrote "It is hard to see how any politician could make us confront what we want to avoid." I couldn't have said it any better, along with your whole post. I think as a society we need to start facing the real, systemic problems which confront us, not muslim bogeymen and governmental scapegoats.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Bush was as "accurately" Conservative as Obama is Progressive, for what it's worth. Anyone who's legitimately conservative disagrees with pretty much 95% of everything George W got involved with, lol.

I'd prefer to call the 2008 election more of a repudiation of sheer idiocy. Unfortunately, we're basically still in the same hole.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

In that case, what does a true conservative believe in? How does it differ from the policies being promoted by modern day Republicans? The only difference I am aware of is that they say they want to reduce the size of government, but they actually increase it, by increasing the size of our military. Unless they happen to be libertarians, they are militaristic, pro-corporate pawns of big business.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Cheese and Lefty,dealing with Greenlanthorn and political labels and etc.will distract us from helping the republicans dig a deeper hole,and solutions

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I suppose you are correct about that, Tay, but I was responding to Cheesebone, who was responding to me.

I like you Tay, and your ideas which are pretty sympatico with mine, so I will describe my techniques for dealing with conservatives on this site and hope you don't take this the wrong way since I have been here for a couple of years, which is a lot longer than I think you have.

I have a pretty good idea how to deal with conservatives on this site, and I have my own sense of intuition about them as a social psychologist. I saw through the disguises of several of them and outed them as suspected paid lackeys before that was known to the administrators here and they were banned. There used to be several of them who posted more than nearly anyone else on this message board.

When they are giving talking points, you can ignore them (or say something about talking points);
When they are insisting on refuting every point you make, you can point out their inconsistencies and poor logic (or point out that they are guilty of the very things they claim progressives are guilty of);
When they are creating a right wing fairy tale world, you can ask what kind of kool aid they have been drinking (or something to that effect);
And when it becomes clear that they claim to be hard working people with a lucrative business, yet they spend all of their time trying to make conservative converts on message boards, you can suggest that some conservative organization is paying them (or something to that effect), but remember, never go overboard with personal insults, or you will likely be banned from this site too. I have seen that happen quite a lot to progressives here.
Any of these techniques can get them to quiet down and reduce their constant barrage of right wing propaganda.

Those conservatives who are being reasonable (who are usually the honest ones), on the other hand, can be reasoned with, and they might even admit you have some good points, and they might have some good points.

Finally, dealing with the conservatives can get tiresome, but at least for me, since I am primarily a blogger, I just go to the blog portion of this site, where there are few conservatives and they have more difficulty dealing with the well constructed posts on the blogs.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Generally, a paid troll will either ignore a well thought out post or pick a sentence out of context and rip into it. They'll change the meaning of a post. Ideologues will often do the same.

They are pretty easy to spot. The current batch have learned not to cross the border line of acceptable behavior stated here: .

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/06/isnt-libertarian-free-market-message-board-here-thom-hartmann-program

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Natural Lefty:In that case, what does a true conservative believe in? How does it differ from the policies being promoted by modern day Republicans? The only difference I am aware of is that they say they want to reduce the size of government, but they actually increase it, by increasing the size of our military. Unless they happen to be libertarians, they are militaristic, pro-corporate pawns of big business.

I don't think it's really possible to tell any one PERSON what they SHOULD believe based on the party that they associate themselves with..

The thing is that modern day Republicans DON'T REPRESENT THE VALUES that the Republican party was initially kind of backboning. (Is that even a word?) Republicans were supposed to be anti war, but pro-defense. Make sure that we have the most capable, strong military around, but don't get involved in things we have no busines being involved in. Keep government at a level that provides services to people that they cannot provide for themselves.

Personally I'd have to stick myself in the Libertarian crowd, although I'm very pro-choice and that doesn't sit well with many of them either, hehe

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

Lefty & Poly,Thanks for the heads-up.Seeing "Rome Burning",i have no patience for any non-constructive advise.I won`t call it "garbage" anymore,i will ignore it.Calling it garbage would be a "waste of time".I would donate for a moderator to separate fact from fiction/garbage.We could save a lot of time for solutions.Issues is the only label i will apply for.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Cheesbone, I agree with you about Republican priorities. The Republicans as currently found in Congress do not represent the values or policies they are supposed to, except maybe some of the incoming ones. I don't agree with libertarian ideas advocating deregulating the economy and the Ayn Rand type ideas that thinks will run themselves in the best possible way if you just leave it alone, but I do agree with their non-militaristic emphasis and their disdain for monopolies and too-big-to-fail businesses.

Tay, of course, I wrote that list for anyone who reads this, not just you, but I hope you appreciate it. Actually, Polycarp knows a lot more than I do about the people on this site, since he is an administrator. I agree that we should be focusing on the search for solutions here. As I mentioned, some conservatives can have a genuine dialogue with we progressives, and that is a good thing. It is when I feel they are not being genuine that itheir posts bother me.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Natural Lefty wrote: "Polycarp knows a lot more than I do about the people on this site, since he is an administrator"

poly replies: Thanks for the promotion, However, I'm just a moderator with a very light finger on the ban button. The site encourges the flow of ideas.. It's when that flow is purposely disrupted that moderators step in.

The other moderators are DRC and Meljomur. SueN is the Administrator.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Lefty,I think you took my post the wrong way.Seeing Rome burning,i have no time for non-constructive conservatives.I know any post on the internet isn`t for one set of eyes.I appreciate your listing and thanks again.I also say again,i don`t get involve in labels.We`re all many things at one time and anytime.We can change, but the issues don`t. Poly,now i see how you have the patience of a saint(DRC too) Melj,i guess being a women,can show more emotion.From what i see,you guys make some of the wisest posts on the site you have my respect. Poly,I would donate for you to ban people who steer the topic off course.That`s the real problem,"rope a dope" topics.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Polycarp, I don't know my administrators from my moderators. What can I say? Oops, but I trust it's no biggie. Maybe i can promote myself to lead blogger, in that case.

Tay, I know what you mean about Republicans. The Republican politicans we have been seeing over the years, have absolutely nothing of value to offer as far as I can tell, and I for the life of me cannot understand why so many people vote for them. They sure don't here in California, with some exceptions, but a generation ago, California did create a politician out of Ronald Reagan. Yuck! I couldn't stand him even when I was a kid growing up. I don't see why we should even take these Repubicans seriously anymore. If we do take them seriously, Rome will continue to burn, as you say. I wrote a letter to Obama a couple of weeks ago in which I basically made that point.

Regarding my advice about conservative posters who use insincere tactics, it was meant in general for dealing with people like these.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wow, meljomur, who just announced she voted repulican accross the board, is a moderator!? You guys must be desperate. I think I'm done with this forum. She's harassing me on a thread I made in US domestic politics in a post I made about Liberals going to Conservative forums to change hearts, as incorrectly posted. That kind of nit picking bullying is junk. If I want conservative moderation I'll go to a conservative forum. If I want a liberal moderator I'll go to

http://liberalforum.org/

Nice knowing you guys, there were some great debates. Probably good riddance that I'm gone eh?

Meanwhile Mel's going to keep alienating liberal forum users...

makuck's picture
makuck
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 10:13 pm

No, I am just good at detecting the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Perhaps it's because I am a woman and I am so "emotional"

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

With current election laws, Sarah staying outside party lines and maintaining viability, Obama continuing to bend over for bipartisan kissass, a third option ala Perot in '92, only more animated is something I would like to see, cynic, or rather Skeptic that I am still doesn't crush my natural optimism.
Sarah/Huckabee [or Ron Paul] vs Obama/Biden vs Feingold/Nader [or Kucinivich]

Another outcome could be a tie between the top two, forcing a reconcilliation by way of instant runoff, and the precedent set for a true Republic election standards.

The SCOTUS might scream that it is still not against the law or constitution for their body to appoint the leader. f#"%k'em

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wow, the liberal who votes liberal is a wolf in sheeps clothing, but you, the supposedly liberal moderator who openly disowned your own country, openly votes republican, and chases away real liberals is not. That is psycho-talk. Apparently you haven't detected yourself yet, so maybe you aren't as good at detecting wolves in sheep clothing as you thought.

I never said anything about it being bad you were a woman, and I never attacked emotions. Why did you quote that like I said that? That's against forum rules. Also calling me a wolf in sheeps clothing is a personal attack, which is also against forum rules.

Have you even read any of my threads? Where I basically idolize Thom and how I'm a radical vegetarian, environmentalist, who is for socialized health care and banking?

Is your only criteria for judging a wolf in sheeps clothing based on if a person admires you or not?

Anyway, I'm going to work on stopping the pipeline that Canada is trying to build through OUR country.

makuck's picture
makuck
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 10:13 pm

And what gets me, isn't so much that you are calling me a wolf in sheeps clothing, I know I vote for the most progressive candidates, not the most republican ones.. it's more that you've called a lot of other obvious liberals wolves in sheeps clothing as well, people just trying to contribute a truly progressive point to a thread. Lo and behold we don't hear from them again. If the other administrators and moderators aren't smart enough to catch you, why would I want to hang around a group of people like that? Why would any liberal or progressive?

makuck's picture
makuck
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 10:13 pm

*eats popcorn*

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

Lefty,I say i don`t like labels,but yet i use the republican label.I focus on that label because the rulers use the "individual ideology" more then the democratic community mindset.Both ideologies are being corrupted,by capitalism/economic kings.This why it`s important to get away from labels,it`s very easy to divide us.But on the other hand,we can use "issues' to expose the labels and false solutions.If they follow the false solutions they just "dig themslfs a deeper hole" and we can expose that.Thank again on neo-con tactics.Melj,Thank God,women are more emotional.Mak,speaking for myself,i think a moderator job is to keep people from attacking this site,i also would think their job is not to let people advise from this site,to attack another site.If you cannot understand this,something is "wrong".

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I wonder why I even care what you think about me, because your comments made no sense, and I loose face even replying, but at this point I really don't care.

Who advised to attack any site? Where was this done? You're comments were directed at me so you must mean...

I recently said we should go to conservative sites, like conservatives come to our sites, so we can present alternative ideas. I'd hardly call that advising an "attack". I'm just advising we spread our viewpoints. But maybe we should not get out and get active, as Thom recommends? Developing viewpoints here, in relative isolation is fine, but if they aren't spread or acted on in grass roots movements it's all relatively useless in my opinion. Thom has multiple telephone lines dedicated to conservative callers so he can debate them.. and sometimes he changes hearts and changes minds, that's what I'm advocating.

You yourself have advocated a similar position:

Tayl44: Guys,the best defense is offense.I would have ask,"what differences do you see"? I think it`s time to put these neo-cons on the defense,they have done enough damage with their "Beep" attacks.

Tayl44: We need to go after "media" as the "Spreader of a Disease of Hate"! The media(FOX) is a "National Security Threat"!

Tayl44: We still need "money".Our message need to be main stream.And main stream is the less educated.We need to put our money where our mouth is,put our little 2 cents together.We need to put the internet to use,we put Obama in.Why not start a "Voice to America or New Air America"? We`re wasting time and good use of the internet by just signing petitions and e-mailing politicians.The internet should be taking "United We Stand" to a new level.

I guess now that mel disagrees with me you have a new stance. The board is full of republicans. It's a complete waste of time, and basically I'm just being my own worst enemy being provoked into a final rant. How much more republican do you need to get than actually going out and voting republican, then confessing on an open forum like mel did? Then someone who advocates spreading a progressive message gets trolled on by a moderator - mel.

News flash - liberals don't vote republican.

Here's a link to the thread since you incorrectly assumed I was advocating some kind of attack:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/11/we-should-find-conservative-fo...

makuck's picture
makuck
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 10:13 pm

Makuck,sorry for using the word "attack",but seeing neo-cons garbage on this site,i can only think "what goes around,comes around".I`m not blind with anger to constructive criticism(yet) but pain can make one blind to many things.I stand by all my quotes,my offense was defense at neo-cons,fascist media,internet.That`s a general attack,not a specific one.Thom,has been specific on some bad websites/people,but that`s his power of choice.He pick his time to be a "lightening rod",not us.Sorry again if i misunderstood you,i agree with most your posts,hope you stick around. The political labels of the moderators mean nothing to me,i think they do a god job.I just wish they could find a way to stop the "rope-a-dope" garbage.I think this is the main reason the internet hasn`t created more acton solutions.Everytime you see a action starting to develop,the garbage come in.Be careful of the "Lightening Rod".(I know) The day is coming,we`ll all become one,if not already.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think I see what you're saying. I don't always understand all your posts. On the internet it is very hard to read tone of voice, sarcasm, jokes, etc. What may be completely outlandish to one person may make more sense to another if there is no inflection of voice behind the words. Good communication skills become exponentially important. When you leap to conclusions about someone on the internet, you always have to take a step back first, and ask yourself "are you sure"? Not just on the internet should one ask that of oneself, it should be a mantra.

Probably what would have been more effective at garnering acceptance from one who disliked me would be to have combated it with love and positive praise. Unfortunately I didn't feel I had that in me at the time, and still don't, I am not an enlightened soul. Words can be a double edged sword, and can bite back. And when I said them I was fully expecting them to do just that. That being said, I agree with most of your positions, I think, as I understand them, but not Mel's, the position of screw America is one I just can't swallow.

Normally I find a way to see eye to eye with people.. when the power structure is on even footing. When it is not, and I feel a lie has been told about me by the one with power, it is especially aggravating because there is a certain feeling of helplessness. Perhaps I have done similar things to people. If I did I would hope they would call me out on it so I could make amends. I wouldn't want to go around saying blatant lies about people with no accountability.

That being said, this isn't necessarily directed at anyone in particular but it definitely applies to some more than others - when a neo-con comes on the board it's not like it's hard to spot them. Just because someone says something in the middle of the road it doesn't mean they're a conservative. To go around screaming conservative at everyone in the middle of the road smacks of the McCarthy era and the anti-communist frenzy. Conservatives have a distinct ideology. Liberals have a distinct ideology. There are issues that are definitely black and white. You either want children and elderly to have a safety net or you don't. But we don't need to be looking in all the gray areas, like who we should talk to on the internet, and screaming con if they answer "incorrectly".

Anyway, my apologies for any misunderstandings.

makuck's picture
makuck
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 10:13 pm

Makuck,we`re all human,you show you having forgot.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system