Lack of civility

244 posts / 0 new
Last post
patchthrough
patchthrough's picture

You know, you preach on the radio Republicans should take the time to listen to left-wing radio and read left-wing web sites.  I am in the middle and listenened to your show today and it was largely Rebublican bashing.  No reasoned arguments on the issues, no civil debate between both sides, just people calling up and stating their opinions about how stupid Republicans are.

I believe your listeners are, for the most part, leftists.  The same way Rush's listeners are right-wing extremists.  I would estimate around 75% of Americans are truly in the middle, with some liberal beliefs and some conservative beliefs, depending on the issue.  I do notice on the conservative shows there isn't a heck of a lot of bashing going on, it's mostly talking about the actual issues.

People on the left are always going to believe they are 100% correct about everything, and people on the right think the same thing about themselves.  There is not one thing you can do on your show to ever change that.  What you can do is give that huge majority of people in the middle, moderates or centrists or independents or whatever you want to call them, and give them something serious to consider.  Don't shove GAO charts under their noses at truck stops and think you've won the argument, you haven't.  In fact by doing something so insulting, you've just lost any credibility you may have had in making your point.

In actuality, there is no real difference between the political parties.  They are all bought and paid for by Wall Street and union leadership (the private prison lobby discussed today was an excellent example), and it's been that way for many decades.  You need a fortune to run for office and only those organizations have that kind of money to give, and they give pretty much equally it to both parties.  There is nothing in place to make sure the people are served by their government, and the way things are going, no matter who's in the White House or Congress, it's likely to be that way for a long time to come.

So stop bashing Republicans, they are no worse than Democrats, and vice-versa.  Start figuring out ways outside of government to make life better for as many people as possible, because government is only in it for itself and it's deep-pocket patrons.

 

Comments

Calperson
Calperson's picture
A Leftist's beliefs are all

A Leftist's beliefs are all designed to pander to his ego. So when you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.

Because of the fragility of a Leftist's ego, anything that threatens it is intolerable and provokes rage. So most Leftist blogs can be summarized in one sentence: "How DARE anybody question what I believe!". Rage and abuse substitute for an appeal to facts and reason.

Because their beliefs serve their ego rather than reality, Leftists just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives need evidence.

DRC
DRC's picture
What utter crap!  If you pay

What utter crap!  If you pay attention you will note that Thom has lots of Rightwingers give their best shot, and they are so utterly weak and factless that it becomes an exposure rather than a good debate.

Look at Obama, reaching out for the purple instead of pushing the blue while the GOPimps do everything political and partisan and NEVER do anything to help the economy or anything else other than the rich.  How long does this have to go on for us to get tired of it?

If you want to defend Bush/Cheney and the give it all to the rich to create jobs, you have the miserable results to face.  When you blame Obama for not "changing" what is ossified and encrusted with Crony Capitalism and 'entitlements' to the public treasury like Medicare (dis)Advantage, you are being dishonest in the extreme.

Conservatives need fresh air and eyewash.  They deny evidence and push ideology.  Given the amount of total Rightwing bs on the air, if we have a place to talk about what is really going on, stop whining.  Try some evidence and facts in your posts.

planetxan
planetxan's picture
Calperson wrote: A Leftist's

Calperson wrote:

A Leftist's beliefs are all designed to pander to his ego. So when you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.

Because of the fragility of a Leftist's ego, anything that threatens it is intolerable and provokes rage. So most Leftist blogs can be summarized in one sentence: "How DARE anybody question what I believe!". Rage and abuse substitute for an appeal to facts and reason.

Because their beliefs serve their ego rather than reality, Leftists just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives need evidence.

Project much?

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
patchthrough wrote:You know,

patchthrough wrote:
You know, you preach on the radio Republicans should take the time to listen to left-wing radio and read left-wing web sites.  I am in the middle and listenened to your show today and it was largely Rebublican bashing.  No reasoned arguments on the issues, no civil debate between both sides, just people calling up and stating their opinions about how stupid Republicans are.

Well, many of them are.  There are studies that show that Democrats and liberals, on the whole, are groups that contain more people with college degrees or with some college, as well as fewer per capita high school dropouts.  And, since low educational attainment shows a high positive correlation with low intelligence, there it is.  So, as the cliche goes, if the shoe fits, Republicans need to put it on.  It's never bashing to tell the truth.

Quote:
I believe your listeners are, for the most part, leftists.  The same way Rush's listeners are right-wing extremists.  I would estimate around 75% of Americans are truly in the middle, with some liberal beliefs and some conservative beliefs, depending on the issue.

Most exit polls ever conducted show that so-called "independents" vote Republican 60% - 80% of the time.

Quote:
I do notice on the conservative shows there isn't a heck of a lot of bashing going on, it's mostly talking about the actual issues.

ROFLMAO!

Quote:
People on the left are always going to believe they are 100% correct about everything, and people on the right think the same thing about themselves.

Most intelligent people of all persuasions know how to filter out the rhetoric and check their facts; those who are aware and think and devote time to issues have good b.s. detectors.  Those who choose to make football and Hollywood celebrity shows and "reality" shows their intellectual fare do not.  Regrettably, the latter outnumber the former in the American voting populace, but that doesn't mean that they're correct when they develop ossified a priori attitudes and conclusions about anything on the political scene.

Quote:
There is not one thing you can do on your show to ever change that.  What you can do is give that huge majority of people in the middle, moderates or centrists or independents or whatever you want to call them, and give them something serious to consider.
 

If they are indeed moderates, centrists, or independents (again, mostly GOP), and number themselves among those categories because they're discerning individuals, they should be able to ascertain what's important to consider for themselves, and then to, uh, consider it.

Quote:
Don't shove GAO charts under their noses at truck stops and think you've won the argument, you haven't.  In fact by doing something so insulting, you've just lost any credibility you may have had in making your point.

Yeah, facts can be a bitch, especially when they don't support one's preconceptions.

Quote:
In actuality, there is no real difference between the political parties.  They are all bought and paid for by Wall Street and union leadership (the private prison lobby discussed today was an excellent example), and it's been that way for many decades.

U.S. Union membership of the overall workforce is down from a post World War II high of 50% - 55% to between 8% - 12% of the overall workforce.  Most labor contracts have taken cuts in wages and benefits for the past 30 years.  So, where's the base for all this alleged Union power?  There is no equivalency in power between Wall Street and Labor.  Wall Street can and does exponentially outspend Labor many times over.  Public campaign disclosures document that.  The fact that prison guards' unions don't want their rank-and-file turned into wage slaves or replaced by high school dropouts and ex Mall Wart employees through privatization does not mean that any Unions, whether prison guards' or others, possess any inordinate amount of power. 

That's a canard.

Quote:
You need a fortune to run for office and only those organizations have that kind of money to give, and they give pretty much equally it to both parties.

No they don't.  Wall Street and corporations give exponentially more real dollars to right-wing candidates than Unions give real dollars to left-wing candidates.  There's also nothing to the misconception that most single contributors give equally to both left and right.  The facts, once again independently verifiable by looking at campign contributions disclosures, are that both sides give perfunctory amounts to the opposition because if the opposition should win, they don't want it to go out of its way to screw them.  They figure that if they give nothing that might happen, whereas if they give a little something, it probably won't, because they can falsely claim neutrality.  But they're not fooling anybody; they never have. 

Quote:
There is nothing in place to make sure the people are served by their government,

Yes there is.  It's called voting.  But it's not taken advantage of when 15% - 20% turnouts are considered phenomenal.  Lots of the same halfwits who refuse to vote would be screaming in the streets if somebody told them they were forbidden to vote.  Full acountability will come to politicians if and when there are ever full or extremely high voter turnouts; not before.  Those who don't vote shouldn't bitch; their bitching has no moral force behind it, although the First Amendment protects their right to do it.  Non-voters bitching is directly analogous to a guy with a loaded gun sitting in an easy chair watching his house being burgled while bitching that he's being robbed.

Quote:
and the way things are going, no matter who's in the White House or Congress, it's likely to be that way for a long time to come.

Objectively speaking, whose fault is that?  The president refuses to sell the farm, so the GOP won't do anything at all.  There is an objective difference in degree of blame.

Quote:
So stop bashing Republicans, they are no worse than Democrats, and vice-versa.

Opinions are like assholes:  everybody's got one.

Quote:
Start figuring out ways outside of government to make life better for as many people as possible, because government is only in it for itself and it's deep-pocket patrons.

Sure.  Ignore government and it will go away.  Everything will be fine.  Let the market do it, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.  Everybody will be just great if they rely on the business community to create a paradise of "moderates."  No regulations.  Government shouldn't do that.  Shouldn't do anything.  No taxes for anything except an Army to keep the commies at bay.  That's what we need, all right.  People should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps even though they don't have boots, and do everything for themselves.  Let's see now, oh yes, it's spelled "l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n."

This entire post was one of many deliberate right-wing plant personas:  The Right-Winger Clad In the Garb of A Rhetorically Reasonable Moderate Who Just Wants the Nasty Left To Stop Bashing the Abhorrent Right and Be, Uh, Reasonable.  You know they're plants when you hear a wave of them on progressive radio and see a wave of their letters to the same effect in letters-to-the-editors columns, and this approach has shown up in a multiplicity of media outlets lately.  Norman Goldman talks about it on his show quite frequently.  They subtly try to set up a false equivalency between liberals and cons and hope to sell that with prose that appears reasonable. 

Yesiree, nothin' like some "reasonable, moderate" advice from your ol' Dutch Uncle!  All you little commies out there should take it to heart, y'heah? 

 

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Calperson

Calperson wrote:

Conservatives need evidence.

And when they get it, they ignore it.  Witness their war on science. 

chilidog
patchthrough wrote: What you

patchthrough wrote:

What you can do is give that huge majority of people in the middle, moderates or centrists or independents or whatever you want to call them, and give them something serious to consider. 

Don't shove GAO charts under their noses at truck stops and think you've won the argument, you haven't.  In fact by doing something so insulting, you've just lost any credibility you may have had in making your point.

Who publishes reliable statistics that I won't insult anybody with?

.ren
.ren's picture
patchthrough wrote: There is

patchthrough wrote:

There is nothing in place to make sure the people are served by their government, and the way things are going, no matter who's in the White House or Congress, it's likely to be that way for a long time to come.

I daresay, that's an example of conservative thinking, the notion that there actually is a working structure in place and that structure is supposed to work flawlessly, like a well oiled machine, to take care of what needs to be taken care of, all of which is known beforehand and therefore was embedded by the wise ones before hand, and ultimately why the institution was designed.  Fundamental religions and politics work from that basis. 

The notion that thinking, perceiving, mindful human beings can act independently from an existing system is missing.  Our living humanity, then, which is a process, not a product, is missing from this view, ultimately.  Note that existent Left and Right political rhetoric does not necessarily take into account nor reflect an awareness of this essential point of age-old conservatism, which is the conservatism of conserving "what's in place", usually with all the logical armament of the institutions created, most especially including the logical structures in place in any given document written to codify these bastions of institutionality.  It's the age old struggle between flexibility and habit in the ongoing process of life, where life is seen as a process, not a machine designed by higher beings, or in esoterica-speak, the tension between structure and antistructure.

What's taking place, even now, much as in the past with this always present process when discerning humans have acted to whatever degree they could once machinelike social institutions arose in their lives, is direct perception, sharing of perceptions, and from that come various attempts to articulate a phenomenon that has stolen their humanity in the guise of unworkable, even unfair tradition, which is often deemed by the keepers of the system "the good".  This is, by definition, since "good" equals "civil", lack of civility in action, thus the designation "lack of civility" comes from the urge to conserve "what-is-in-place" point of view. From that tension, then, the uncivil, upstart perceivers set about making actions to deal with the problems they perceive, generally actions that indicate quite obviously there is "nothing in place" to respond to what they perceive. 

OWS is a recent example.  If you doubt, just take the trouble to look at all that went into the effort on many fronts, by many perceivers of the dysfunctional status quo, to organize the very notion of Occupation before the first Occupy moment took place.  There is a strong realization in minds of these many actors of the mechinisms of control they are up against.

And what happens is ultimately predictable.  The institutions then call upon their in-place machinery to stop the rebuttal to this effort to conserve "what is" which generally now feeds the needs of a very few quite generously.    Part of that in-place machinery is the ongoing propaganda effort to project a lie that the rabble is "uncivil" in their efforts to change the system.  But this has been the story of at least recent Western civilization.  Like Ghandi once is said to have said: "What do I think of Western civilization?  I think it would be a very good idea."  But to understand that quote one needs to have a sense of history.

Calperson
Calperson's picture
Ulysses wrote: No they

Ulysses wrote:

No they don't.  Wall Street and corporations give exponentially more real dollars to right-wing candidates than Unions give real dollars to left-wing candidates. 

I'd love to know where you go your figures from? In reality Unions outspends Wall St by a factor of 3 to 1.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/despite-citizens-uni...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR201007...

The problem is Democrats then give massive amounts of retirement and benefits to their union benefactors using our hard earned cash, and the whole horrible corrupt cycle begins again. It is the biggest maney laundering operation in the country today.

chilidog
Money doesn't win elections.

Money doesn't win elections. You know that.

DRC
DRC's picture
The false equivalent argument

The false equivalent argument never goes away.  Corporations obviously have a lot more cash to spend on elections than workers do, even when they are well organized and their union is on the ball.  But suppose they really were "equal" in financial ability.  The Corporation would still represent its investor class wealth rather than the shareholders in pension funds, etc.  They would still seek to be able to reduce pay and benefits to workers and to rob pension funds, and they can use the revenue stream of their business to finance it.  It makes it an investment in the corporation's profitability, not just the political interests of the people who comprise the corporation.  Those profits do not get distributed to the workers and shareholders at the bottom.  Pure trickle down inside the beast as well.

On the other side, we see ordinary workers and middle class professionals banding together to protect their pensions and to have social benefits apart from their bonds to their employers.  Not being tied to the corporation allows them freedom to move; and having a union allows them not to have to for reasons of economic astringency.  Power to match power in the workplace is necessary.  And their funds come from many people, not from a few.  I would never bind unions with the same regs appropriate to revenue producing entities, but those who accept this believe that they give up a lot less than the corporate few gain by having no restrictions on "donations."

As Thom points out, unions are democracies while corporations are autocracies.  The idea of "union bosses" is both pr and what happens when corporate is allowed to corrupt some unions.  Again, the problem is not unions.  When employers are able to capture their unions and turn them into domesticated pets, they do what tyrannies do. 

The whole idea that "our heard earned money" is being ripped off to support worker pensions would have a grain of truth were not the ripping off going to the rich and not to workers.

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Calperson]</p> <p>[quote=Ulys

Calperson]</p> <p>[quote=Ulysses wrote:

No they don't.  Wall Street and corporations give exponentially more real dollars to right-wing candidates than Unions give real dollars to left-wing candidates. 

Quote:
I'd love to know where you go your figures from? In reality Unions outspends Wall St by a factor of 3 to 1.

Nonsense.  First, individual rank-and-file Union members don't have the deep pockets of average Wall Street and corporate managers, some of whom are their bosses, at any level.  Accordingly, most rank-and-file Union members can't afford to give the maximum allowable amounts, even if they'd like to, whereas the business community, especially at the management level, can and usually does individually contribute the maximum allowable amount to GOP/right-wing candidates for national office at every election. 

Individual wealthy family members -- majority stockholders -- of the 1% who control 40% of the country's wealth, almost all contribute the maximum allowable amount in every election -- about two million of them.  The same is true of the mid-management corporate managerial class, which gets the arm to contribute put on it by its corporate superiors.  Since most mid-level managers are scared for their jobs if they don't ante up, they do.

Unions have to get permission from their members before they contribute dues money to campaigns.  Corporate managers and Wall Street executives are free to act virtually unilaterally. 

Corporations contribute vast amounts from hidden sources, dummy sub-corporations, private individuals who are not publicly linked to them, and funds laundered through loopholes by their accountants.  Unions don't do that because the Rico Statutes, which are Federal racketeering laws, are strictly enforced against Unions.  There are no equivalent legal restraints on corporations, especially during GOP administrations and when the GOP has control of Congress.

Campaign contributions are publicly disclosed, by law.  Anybody can Google the lists and read who contributed what, to whom.  

Quote:
The problem is Democrats then give massive amounts of retirement and benefits to their union benefactors using our hard earned cash, and the whole horrible corrupt cycle begins again. It is the biggest maney laundering operation in the country today.

The real problem is ignorance. 

Union retirement funds are provided by the employers, not the government, after employers negotiate contribution rates with the Unions.  And, it should be noted, defined contribution Union pensions are at record lows when compared to what they were when nationwide Union membership was seven times greater than it is now. 

Union pension trusts are run by trustees, and each has an equal number of Union trustees and employer trustees on it.  Both sides have exactly the same number of seats on any Taft-Hartley trust so that neither side can take over the money and misuse it.  This means that neither Unions nor employers can plunder those funds or spend any of them without the other side and the government knowing about it and acting upon it.  Both Union and employer trustees on any trust share equal fiduciary responsibility for keeping that trust sound and responsibly managing the monies in it. 

The Federal government, by law, can and does conduct spot audits of all Taft-Hartley Union trusts. 

It's a bizarre -- as well as false -- notion that the Democrats somehow fund Union pension plans.

The Democrats give the Unions benefits?  More nonsense.  Benefits, like pensions, are negotiated between the employers and the Unions, mostly at the same time wages are addressed in any contract cycle, the same way as pensions are, and Union benefit plans are also regulated and overseen by joint Union/employer trusts and the government.

Money laundering?  In truth, the biggest money laundering plan in the nation is the free tax ride the wealthiest have had since the second half of the Clinton administration and the bank bailout caused by Gramm/Leach/Blilley and George Bush's administration.  Monies from that laundering have been laundered straight out of the pockets of the poor and middle class and into the pockets of the 1% who own 40% of the country's wealth.

Go get an education.

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Calperson]</p> <p>[quote=Ulys

Calperson]</p> <p>[quote=Ulysses wrote:

No they don't.  Wall Street and corporations give exponentially more real dollars to right-wing candidates than Unions give real dollars to left-wing candidates. 

[quote]I'd love to know where you go your figures from? In reality Unions outspends Wall St by a factor of 3 to 1.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/despite-citizens-uni...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070602133_2.html?sid=ST2010070605201{/quote]

I looked up and read the second of the two cites given by this halfwit.  Careful and critical reading of the material does nothing to back up the assertion that labor currently outspends corporations on campaigns -- absolutely nothing.  In addition, the material is almost two years old, so it's no longer even relevant, because corporations have pumped in lots more money since then.  Also, it says right in the same cite that it's anticipated (at that time) that corporations would fire up their giving, and they have, and we ain't seen nothin' yet, so why cite it now? 

Wait 'til the presidential race gets firmed up, after the GOP gets its candidate and House and Senate seats are at stake.  That's going to prove Cal's assertions wrong in a big way.  I invite anybody else to go to the Washington Post cite, read it carefully and critically for him/herself, and you'll see what I mean.  Drawing glittering generalities from specific data that doesn't apply across the boards, as this Cal has done here, is not only unproductive, it's stupid.

I didn't bother to look at the Atlantic cite because I figured if Cal's documentation was so sloppy on the Washington Post cite, there was a good chance it'd be more of the same with the Atlantic.  Cal needs to take a course on critical reading and another one on how to interpret statistics.

 

Calperson
Calperson's picture
The American Federation of

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections. Outspending the Chamber of Commerce by 20%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230333950457556648176179028...

The problem is indeed PUBLIC SECTOR Unions, who spend up big to  install their crony politician who then in turn grants the public union massive pay and benefits that dwarf that of the comparable private sector worker. The crony politician then expands the size of government primarily to gain more union members and whole vicious cycle spins expensively out of control.

I'm sorry, but it is we, the average private sector worker who has to pay for all of this, and we just cannot keep up and afford it. We have to feed our own families, and we too dream of one day buying for ourselves one of the many boats or Chevy Tahoes our public union brothers enjoy.

Here is a list of top political donors over the last 20 years. You'll see that corporations and industry groups tend to give evenly to both parties, with maybe a slight lean toward republicans. Labor Unions give entirely to democrats. The top of the list is dominated by democrat donors. Of the top 16 donors, NONE lean republican.

 

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
 According to your theory

 According to your theory Calperson no lefties will look at what you present, but I certainly will look into the issue more closely It really does little to change the overall debate regarding a democraticaly run economy however

bullwinkle
DRC-" Try some evidence and

DRC-" Try some evidence and facts in your posts."

You need to take your own advice.

Ulysses-" Well, many of them are. There are studies that show that Democrats and liberals, on the whole, are groups that contain more people with college degrees or with some college, as well as fewer per capita high school dropouts. And, since low educational attainment shows a high positive correlation with low intelligence, there it is. So, as the cliche goes, if the shoe fits, Republicans need to put it on. It's never bashing to tell the truth."

That is a baseless and dumbass statement!  The leftist, liberal, progressives standard rant is that the repulsives are the party of the rich. Are all rich people uneducated or are they educated and take from the uneducated? Why haven't the educated leftys taken form the uneducated or have they? Ignorant statement!

Ulysses-"If they are indeed moderates, centrists, or independents (again, mostly GOP), and number themselves among those categories because they're discerning individuals, they should be able to ascertain what's important to consider for themselves, and then to, uh, consider it.

They need geniuses like you to tell them what is important.

Ulysass-"You know they're plants when you hear a wave of them on progressive radio and see a wave of their letters to the same effect in letters-to-the-editors columns, and this approach has shown up in a multiplicity of media outlets lately.

What? Based on your opinion (which stinks) they would be illiterate, uneducated and could not write. Such bullshit......

Chilidog-"Who publishes reliable statistics that I won't insult anybody with?"

Nobody. If it is contrary to what the ideologues here want to believe, then it is insulting to them or they ignore it.

Robindell-"Criticizing the response of progressives with a sweeping generalization is, in fact, an attack. "

The opposite of that could be considered true, also.

DRC-"The false equivalent argument never goes away. Corporations obviously have a lot more cash to spend on elections than workers do"

And they gave more to the Dumocrats than the GOPimpers in the 2008 elections, albeit not much. That is the way they retain their influence on government no matter who is in the WH or majority in Congess. It should be illegal for corporations to give any money to any party or politician for any reason, period! Same with unions!

Calperson-"The problem is indeed PUBLIC SECTOR Unions, who spend up big to install their crony politician who then in turn grants the public union massive pay and benefits that dwarf that of the comparable private sector worker. The crony politician then expands the size of government primarily to gain more union members and whole vicious cycle spins expensively out of control."

How right you are!

 

bullwinkle
[Jonathan Adler,August 29,

[Jonathan Adler,August 29, 2008 at 8:23am] TrackbacksCorporations Give More Money to Democrats:

The WSJ reports corporations have given substantially more money to the Democrats for their just-concluded convention than to the Republicans for theirs.

A list of Democratic convention events compiled by the Washington lobbying firm Quinn Gillespie & Associates LLC is three times as long as one it compiled for the Republican convention.

A separate study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute shows that 141 companies have donated $160 million to the host committee for the Democratic convention, compared with 80 companies and $100 million for the Republican convention.

Precise figures are impossible to produce because companies aren't required to disclose all of their spending at conventions, and host committees may report spending at a later date. But nonpartisan watchdogs have been monitoring spending by special interests in Denver. "There certainly seems to be more parties at the Democratic convention than [planned for] the Republican convention," said Nancy Watzman with the Sunlight Foundation.

The story also notes that this shift mirrors broader trends in corporate support for the two parties.

he attention that businesses are devoting to Democrats at the convention underscores a broader shift in political spending as the Democratic Party increases its power in Washington.

For the first time in at least a decade, corporations are spending more money to elect Democrats this fall than they are on Republicans. Data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics show that corporations and their political action committees have contributed $115.9 million to Democratic candidates, the Democratic Party and outside political organizations this election cycle, compared with $111.5 million for Republicans. The data don't include donations from individuals.

That gives Democrats a 51% to 49% advantage over Republicans in corporate money.

 

 

polycarp2
Probably instead of bemoaning

Probably instead of bemoaning public employee benefits and wages,  private sector employees should demand the same.

The nation produces about $160,000 annually for each family of four. I doubt that most American families come close to that considering that  50% are at or below the poverty line.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

chilidog
Calperson wrote: Here is a

Calperson wrote:

Here is a list of top political donors over the last 20 years.

Without even looking at this data I can spot some flaws.

A dollar in 1990 is not equal to a dollar in 2010, based on inflation, but also on the changes in campaign finance laws.

Barack Obama has taken a ton of corporate cash at least from 2007 to 2010.  Which is why his policies are indistinguishable from Bush's.  Ditto with Clinton.

I would be interested to see the statistics from 1995 to 2004.

bullwinkle
Chilidog-" Barack Obama has

Chilidog-"

Barack Obama has taken a ton of corporate cash at least from 2007 to 2010. Which is why his policies are indistinguishable from Bush's. Ditto with Clinton.

I would be interested to see the statistics from 1995 to 2004."

I think the results would also indicate the same-Corporations hedge their bets which is why policies continue to be indistinguishable.

 

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
Bullwinkle"

Bullwinkle" wrote:

Calperson-"The problem is indeed PUBLIC SECTOR Unions, who spend up big to install their crony politician who then in turn grants the public union massive pay and benefits that dwarf that of the comparable private sector worker. The crony politician then expands the size of government primarily to gain more union members and whole vicious cycle spins expensively out of control."

How right you are!

LOL. I can't believe you think that public sector pensions are sooooo generous. How is having one's needs met too much? I know the new conservative "normal" is poverty and death and minimum wage jobs are now called "middle class" but can't we see through this crap?

Why the hell would you worry about publicly employed citizens being represented and compensated well rather than complaining that the private sector is screwing people out of their political voice and standard of living? The liber-tard-ian perspective is perpetually skewed to the far right (in the political sense)...which is far from right (in the literal sense).

bullwinkle
D-"Why the hell would you

D-"Why the hell would you worry about publicly employed citizens being represented and compensated well rather than complaining that the private sector is screwing people out of their political voice and standard of living?"

Because it is taxpayer money!  You fucking socialists think that all private sector businesses are like Goldman fucking sachs, or EXXON obscene MOBIL! In actuality most private sector businesses are small mom and pop operations (that do by the way provide most of the jobs)that are struggling to stay afloat in this over-regulated, depression, stiffling economic environment. I know,  I own a small business in a depressed rural area and I have been struggling for 5 years to stay afloat. I can't even think about funding any type of retirement and the taxpayers goddamn sure aren't contributiong anything to it.  I pay 15.3% of my gross income in SS and medicare taxes that I am being told will probably NOT be there when I am too old to continue to WORK! Plus I pay INCOME TAXES to fund overpaid do nothing bureaucrats to fuck with me to try to find something I am doing wrong to either fine me or put me out of business. And bleeding heart lib-tards and regressives like you piss me off with your socialistic government has all the answers bullshit!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/public_vs_private_retirements_jKrCbtWRp67H3GDJ00CqKK

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Chill bullwinkle: You own a

Chill bullwinkle:

You own a small business that is struggling.  I wonder why that is?  Are you good at what you do?  If so, you are not alone.  I have seen dozens of past flourishing businesses close shop in the last 10 years or so.  It's no wonder.  With the republican economic policies we've had in this country the last 30 years it was forseen.  Republican policy claims to be the champion of small business and they are destroying all of them one by one.  At one time you could make a pretty descent living in this country.  Republicans keep busting those nasty unions that fight for workers wages and benefits.  They have kept average workers  income levels at nearly the same level as they were 30 years ago when lined up with inflation.  They are squeezing the pennies from middle America and "investing" it in the markets.

Those publicly employed citizens, along with all the other "Lib-tards" were your customers.  They can't afford you anymore.  They can barely afford anything anymore and small businesses are scratching their heads.  Quit bitchin about bleeding heart lib-tards and regressives and get up from your computer, walk over to the nearest mirror and take a long hard look at who's responsible for your business struggling.  Keep voting republican and soon you can join all those other fucking socialists in the bread lines.

bullwinkle
In then FIRST place I am not

In then FIRST place I am not and have not voted Republican since Reagan! My business does not depend on government workers. I blame the fucking dumbocrats in congress just as much as the repulsives!  Obozo had a majority for 2 years and regulation, government fees, taxes, and services (water, sewage, garbage) has continued to rise as my revenues continue to drop. Albeit, I am referring to local, county, state and federal cost to stay in business. When is the last time ANY public sector employee has had to take a cut in pay? All I hear from you bleeding heart lib-tards and regressives is we need more regulation and more taxes (and higher fees) to fuck off. If government didn't neeed to extracrt from the privarte sector so much and continue its never ending expansion then maybe the private sector could provide better wages for jobs that at least produce something.

You know nothing of my business or my abilities. I cannot control the cost of fuel, utilities, or government fees. What i had to do years back was lay-off 2 employees. Just my overhead has increased 50% in 5 years. Raising prices to the maximum the market will bear is not keeping up! And see where that hurts the average person? I see government as nothing but an impediment to my well-being that I alone have to be responsible for and my family's.

DRC
DRC's picture
Bull, I believe you have

Bull, I believe you have voted Third Party, probably Lib.  Your bombastic rhetoric allows no distinction between the duopoly parties, and your insults to public sector workers is based on a false assumption that "we" do not pay for the workers in the private sector or for the rip-offs at the top.  We get value from our public sector workers who do things that are generally more in the common interest than a considerable portion of corporate that gets the "private sector" baptism in your ideology.  I want my public employees to have reasonable wages and benefits.  I would like to see the private sector follow suit so we don't have to pick up their externalities in food stamps and other forms of public subsidy.

I think any honest assessment of the past few decades tells us that "the economy" has been of GOP design with some help from some Dems and some things slipped in under Clinton as he left office.  I give Bill bad marks for Global Trade, but again, this is a GOPimp brand that Clinton bought into for crass political purposes and pressure from the Right.  Democrats did not advocate this crap and most of us have been screaming at the DLC triangulators for selling us out.

That you see government as nothing but an impediment to your well-being says it all.  You do not believe in democracy if you do not have a place for government of, by and for the people.  If you do not like the government we have, and there is good reason for that, work to change it to the government we need instead of blowing gas about Obama, including a number of ridiculous names for him. 

Some of us can disagree with a lot of what he has done without being blind to the good things he has also done.  Some can see that he is a significant step away from the Right and from the insanity of his predecessors.  Sure, we still have a long way to go, and we may find the next few years moving away from the present into an alternative to the empire and GTO Globalism.  If Obama is too moderate, push him hard from the Left where there is no belief in authoritarian government, unlike on the Right.  Libertarians are orphans by choice if they do not seek common ground with Progressives.  Got to give up the attacks on "government" per se.  Or, come up with a real theory of anarchism as government.  Something other than this rant against anyone who does not buy into your screed.

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Calperson]</p> <p>[quote

Calperson]</p> <p>[quote wrote:
The problem is indeed PUBLIC SECTOR Unions,

The demonization of public sector Unions is garbage as well, but why didn't you specify that in the first place, instead of writing in generalities that any sane individual would think you meant to include ALL Unions, public and private?

I suppose you think that just because somebody works in a public sector job/Union, they should work for the same basic wage and pseudo-benefits now enjoyed by Mall Wart employees.  If so, good luck.  You get what you pay for on anything, and if you people who want to destroy public sector Unions get your way, nobody will be working at public sector jobs except the dregs of the workforce.  Then you'll really see the quality of job performance in those jobs go down the porcelain throne.

Like private sector Unions, public sector Unions also have spending caps on how much they can contribute to politics, and it's nowhere near what corporations are pouring in for this fall's elections.

Quote:
We have to feed our own families, and we too dream of one day buying for ourselves one of the many boats or Chevy Tahoes our public union brothers enjoy.

If you're serving fast food, better yourself, rather than envying, resenting, and wanting to take away what public sector Union workers earn through honest toil.  "Boats" and "Tahoes" is codespeak stereotyping.

Quote:
Here is a list of top political donors over the last 20 years. You'll see that corporations and industry groups tend to give evenly to both parties, with maybe a slight lean toward republicans. Labor Unions give entirely to democrats. The top of the list is dominated by democrat donors. Of the top 16 donors, NONE lean republican.

I'm not going over this again.  I've already stated how laundered corporate money goes to the Right/GOP. 

"...slight lean toward republicans?!"

ROFLMAO!  ROFLMAO!  ROFLMAO!

 

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Who rang for this

Who rang for this "Bullwinkle?"  I've seen his tag around for years; he comes and goes.  Judging from the burning "brilliance" of his posts, he's aptly named for his clumsy namesake, whose brain is somewhat superior to his own.  His written outbursts in this thread are the spewn cud of his ultimately paranoid consciousness.

bullwinkle wrote:
DRC-" Try some evidence and facts in your posts."

Quote:
You need to take your own advice.

Yeah, there's a good example.  Whenever these droids are bested on any point, they revert to some variant of the old grade school saw, "I know you are but what am I?  I'm rubber and you're glue.  Anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"  Uh huh.  Yeah, Baby, WHAT a sophisticate!

Quote:
Ulysses-" Well, many of them are. There are studies that show that Democrats and liberals, on the whole, are groups that contain more people with college degrees or with some college, as well as fewer per capita high school dropouts. And, since low educational attainment shows a high positive correlation with low intelligence, there it is. So, as the cliche goes, if the shoe fits, Republicans need to put it on. It's never bashing to tell the truth."

Quote:
That is a baseless and dumbass statement!  The leftist, liberal, progressives standard rant is that the repulsives are the party of the rich. Are all rich people uneducated or are they educated and take from the uneducated? Why haven't the educated leftys taken form the uneducated or have they? Ignorant statement!

I stand by it, Frostbite Falls Breath!  If you even knew what demographics and psychographics are, you'd never have revealed your own vast ignorance by wording your response the way you did; you'd have been more clever than that. 

Quote:
Ulysses-"If they are indeed moderates, centrists, or independents (again, mostly GOP), and number themselves among those categories because they're discerning individuals, they should be able to ascertain what's important to consider for themselves, and then to, uh, consider it.

Quote:
They need geniuses like you to tell them what is important.

They need help from some quarter or other, or the point would never have come up.  Most damn reactionaries can't stand ambiguity; they need to believe that everything's black and white, so whenever they're faced with ambiguity, they find a way to fold and run away from it.  That includes confronting any challenges that require true intellectual activity -- deep, rational thought. 

Quote:
Ulysass-"You know they're plants when you hear a wave of them on progressive radio and see a wave of their letters to the same effect in letters-to-the-editors columns, and this approach has shown up in a multiplicity of media outlets lately.

I stand by that.  All anybody has to do is pay attention, though I do realize that focus comes hard for those whose attention spans are synched to the inch-deep, 30-second sound bytes prevalent in right-wing media.

Quote:
What? Based on your opinion (which stinks) they would be illiterate, uneducated and could not write. Such bullshit......

Not at all.  They're merely semi-literate, half-educated, and poor writers.  For example, those who do genuinely know how to write know to conclude sentences ending in ellipses with three ellipses and a period, not with six dots.  It does matter, Old Mossy Horns, because the former usage shows an omission followed by a period, thus creating a particular understanding in the mind of the literate reader, while the latter makes no sense at all to the literate reader, owing to the fact that there's no English prose rule calling for ending a sentence with six dots.... 

So go ahead now, BUGLE!  I'm waiting!  Get it out!  Let's hear it!  Give us one!  Don't be shy, you callow little ungulate! 

Quote:
Chilidog-"Who publishes reliable statistics that I won't insult anybody with?"

Quote:
Nobody. If it is contrary to what the ideologues here want to believe, then it is insulting to them or they ignore it.

Now there's a textbook example of what my grandma used to call "a case of the pot calling the kettle black."

Quote:
Robindell-"Criticizing the response of progressives with a sweeping generalization is, in fact, an attack. "

Quote:
The opposite of that could be considered true, also.

"I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?"  So there, Robindell!

Quote:
DRC-"The false equivalent argument never goes away. Corporations obviously have a lot more cash to spend on elections than workers do"

Quote:
And they gave more to the Dumocrats than the GOPimpers in the 2008 elections, albeit not much. That is the way they retain their influence on government no matter who is in the WH or majority in Congess. It should be illegal for corporations to give any money to any party or politician for any reason, period! Same with unions!

Distorted and inaccurate.  But, the real reason Obama got more corporate money than Dems usually get is that he's a Blue Dog, Center-Right Democrat.  If this were 40 years ago, his ideology would place him squarely in the camp of Rockefeller Republicans.  The center of American politics has shifted so far to the right that he only looks liberal when contrasted with all the corporate fascist nuts in the GOP, Lib, and independent camps.  If he were a '60s Dem, he'd get very little from any corporation.  The fact that he is so Center-Right is why so many of us in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are disenchanted with him. 

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: Chill

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Chill bullwinkle:

You own a small business that is struggling.  I wonder why that is?  Are you good at what you do?  If so, you are not alone.  I have seen dozens of past flourishing businesses close shop in the last 10 years or so.  It's no wonder.  With the republican economic policies we've had in this country the last 30 years it was forseen.  Republican policy claims to be the champion of small business and they are destroying all of them one by one.  At one time you could make a pretty descent living in this country.  Republicans keep busting those nasty unions that fight for workers wages and benefits.  They have kept average workers  income levels at nearly the same level as they were 30 years ago when lined up with inflation.  They are squeezing the pennies from middle America and "investing" it in the markets.

Those publicly employed citizens, along with all the other "Lib-tards" were your customers.  They can't afford you anymore.  They can barely afford anything anymore and small businesses are scratching their heads.  Quit bitchin about bleeding heart lib-tards and regressives and get up from your computer, walk over to the nearest mirror and take a long hard look at who's responsible for your business struggling.  Keep voting republican and soon you can join all those other fucking socialists in the bread lines.

OUTSTANDING!  THANK YOU!  He suffers the blind rage and need to scapegoat of the hardbitten but poorly read and unperceptive local burgher.  If he's even considered the truths you've pointed out here, he's doubtless repressed them and they're surfacing in the aberrant forms of unreasoning hatred of Barack Obama and "you fucking socialists."  It'd be interesting to see him; that would reveal which shade of red his neck is.

chilidog
bullwinkle wrote: In

bullwinkle wrote:

In actuality most private sector businesses are small mom and pop operations (that do by the way provide most of the jobs)

Yes, most private sector businesses are small mom and pop operations.  No, they don't provide most of the jobs, unless "mom" and "pop" have 500 employees.

http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

bullwinkle wrote:

I pay 15.3% of my gross income in SS and medicare taxes

Hell of course you're pissed off if you're paying 15.3% of your GROSS income.

The CPA: Never Underestimate The Value.

leighmf
leighmf's picture
Never discuss Religion or

Never discuss Religion or Politics is a good rule of civility.

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
 Sorry but a little more

 Sorry but a little more regarding Calpersons point on public workers. If a core principle of the left is transparency and public accountability then to whatever degree public sector workers are operatring outside this principle should be considered a problem. Of course it is likely that many on the right will only see any admission from the left that acknowledges problems with public sector workers as vindication of their bad government mantra. but the left is better off sticking to core principles as opposed to hiding them away from right wing manipulation

 The debate is about transparency and something approaching an objective standard of value given for value reieved and not simply about some broken record of government versus private industry

DRC
DRC's picture
Being able to discuss

Being able to discuss religion and/or politics with civility requires both respect for others and advocacy of policies that do not injure the other party.  The politics of conscience are religious warfare.  This is why the abortion and homosexuality red buttons are not about civility by nature.  They legislate dogma to enforce on others without objective public policy discourse and civility.  People who have religious objections to abortion are free to persuade others individually, free to show the superiority of their way, if they can, and free to make their own personal choices without being castigated by those who would choose differently.  It has to go both ways.

Gay rights and gay marriage are similar issues of dogma intruding on the consciences and freedoms of others, by nature incivility.  On the other hand, when we debate public tax policies, we are engaging in civil discourse where there is secular evidence of what works and what results from different policies.  The Right has turned this into a moralistic, theological argument about the right to take money from some to care for others.  I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and a very short-sighted social vision.  The idea that more to the rich benefits all is false and demonstrated to be so.  The idea that high marginal tax rates do return unproductive capital to the economy is well documented, and the social and economic results were damnd good.

There are some ideologues on the Left, and I try to avoid them as distractions even when I could find their dogma close to the truth.  Personal scruples do not translate to public policy on either side.  Meanwhile, what makes conversations with self-identified and affirming cons difficult is that they tend to get to theology without knowing that they are leaving civil discourse.  Then it is hard to have a civil conversation. 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Semi permeable memebrain

Semi permeable memebrain wrote:
Sorry but a little more regarding Calpersons point on public workers. If a core principle of the left is transparency and public accountability then to whatever degree public sector workers are operatring outside this principle should be considered a problem.

Transparency?  I'm not sure what your point is regarding transparency.  Neither I nor anybody else I've read here has argued against transparency by and about public sector employees or Unions.  Transparency is already mandated by law for most government jobs at all levels, including wages, benefits, and activities. 

Most politicians who flout transparency laws and rules get away with it simply because the citizenry doesn't rise up on its hind legs and demand that officeholders at all levels be accountable and stop ignoring transparency requirements.  Most often, transparency is violated on grounds of "national security," a claim that has often been proven spurious in retrospect. 

Transparency in government is most often flouted by Federal employees such as the executive branch, and administrative agency heads appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress.  However, most of the time, transparency isn't lacking when it comes to wages and benefits, etc., but rather, it's lacking when government employees, including elected and appointed officials, do things which violate laws, rules, and customary past practices, and then don't want to be held accountable for it by the people. One recent example of government employees violating transparency is the Bush administration destroying about 300,000 e-mails which, under the Federal archive laws, were supposed to go into the national records as part of our history.  There's also the egregious example of Dick Cheney refusing to disclose the minutes/proceedings of meetings he held to formulate America's energy policies, meetings held as he was the highest level of government worker -- Vice President of the United States.  Cheney didn't want to disclose those minutes because he didn't want the people to know what kinds of deals he cut with his buddies in big oil and gas, but the people are ENTITLED to those minutes.  It's not a PRIVILEGE to have access to those minutes, the people are ENTITLED to those minutes, but Cheney has blocked release and destroyed e-mails and documents.  

These are genuine transparency-in-government issues that the people should be concerned about, rather than small issues and non-issues regarding pay, benefits, and day-to-day job performances of low-level public sector employees.  Nobody's excusing any public sector employees who may fail to do their jobs, but people need to get their priorities in line.  Slackers can be weeded out, even slackers among public sector employees.  People like Cheney, who flagrantly violate transparency laws and abuse power, are much more harmful to democracy's well-being than some low-level bureaucrat who may be drinking coffee or playing video games when he's supposed to be working. 

Quote:
The debate is about transparency and something approaching an objective standard of value given for value reieved and not simply about some broken record of government versus private industry

Debate?  Fine.  But everybody should understand that the Right's constant demonization of public sector employees is not only unproductive, but false.  People shouldn't be expected to work for low wages and crummy benefits just because they're public sector workers; nor should their wages and benefits be based on the lowest common denominator of private sector workers.  They're not convenience store clerks or Mall-Wart greeters.  By the time they're hired, most have taken and passed civil service tests, which prove that they're capable of much more than the aforementioned groups, so they need to be compensated accordingly. 

The quality of employees is like the quality of merchandise:  you get what you pay for.  If public sector Unions are broken and public sector job wages are downleveled to minimum levels, the public will get to enjoy the results, which will be public sector job performance at the maximum competencies of high school dropouts who have trouble counting to ten on their fingers.

bullwinkle
There is no duopoly. That is

There is no duopoly. That is why I support Ron Paul.

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-minneapolis/there-are-not-2-major-political-parties-the-usa

As far as government bureaucrats, far too many are unproductive and useless obstructionists. They might as well be drawing unemployment. Apparently some here have never had to deal with them. Of all bureaucrats I have had the displeasure to deal with most are arrogant, lazy, and incompetant idiots that are never held accountable for anything. Most of them are just monkey gatekeepers, whose job is to keep you from the organgrinder.  They wouldn't last a week in the private sector.

 

 

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
bullwinkle wrote: D-"Why the

bullwinkle wrote:

D-"Why the hell would you worry about publicly employed citizens being represented and compensated well rather than complaining that the private sector is screwing people out of their political voice and standard of living?"

Because it is taxpayer money!  You fucking socialists think that all private sector businesses are like Goldman fucking sachs, or EXXON obscene MOBIL!

If you fucking fascists have your way, that's all that will be left.

Quote:
In actuality most private sector businesses are small mom and pop operations (that do by the way provide most of the jobs)that are struggling to stay afloat in this over-regulated, depression, stiffling economic environment.

You guys are so short sighted you don't even see that this "depression" was created, not by over regulation, but by under regulation. Geez!

Quote:
I know,  I own a small business in a depressed rural area and I have been struggling for 5 years to stay afloat. I can't even think about funding any type of retirement and the taxpayers goddamn sure aren't contributiong anything to it.  I pay 15.3% of my gross income in SS and medicare taxes that I am being told will probably NOT be there when I am too old to continue to WORK!

That's a conservative lie. SS has a surplus. We just need to make sure that EVERYONE pays into it.

Quote:
Plus I pay INCOME TAXES to fund overpaid do nothing bureaucrats to fuck with me to try to find something I am doing wrong to either fine me or put me out of business. And bleeding heart lib-tards and regressives like you piss me off with your socialistic government has all the answers bullshit!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/public_vs_private_retirements_jKrCbtWRp67H3GDJ00CqKK

Really? That's funny. I pay taxes too and mine go to pay the salaries of Tea Party morons who got into office for no other reason than to tear down government. If you don't think their corporatism and supply side BS have hurt you more than socialism, you have your giant, empty, conservative head up your ass.

DRC
DRC's picture
I just love the romantic

I just love the romantic idealism of the private sector where there are no slackers, nepotism never happens and the market forces weed out the inefficient with divine efficiency.  It is so much better to live there than in the real world where bureaucracies are what they are and how work is funded matters less than whether the "business" is accountable to the public interest.  We can always trust the private market to do what is valuable, while in the messy thing called government, "special interests" distort the picture with stuff like feeding and housing the poor and vulnerable--or caring about the externalization of costs and the internalization of profits where "we, the people" are left holding the bag.

D, you do appreciate how hard it is for them to see anything from there.  What gets me is why they think that shit is so beautiful.

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
I have no natural distaste

I have no natural distaste for someone simply because they self identify as "conservative". Yet, I'm tired of always having to argue that water is wet and the sky is blue with these idiots.On the GOP debates, I have heard such a load of demonstratably wrong "facts" presented, it makes me wonder if the moderators even know what the fuck is going on because they don't call them on thier stupid statements.

The European debt crisis was NOT caused by generous social programs. Obama did NOT create this economic fisasco and he is not a "socialist". The auto company loans SAVED millions of jobs,  marriage has not been defined striclty as between one man and one woman for the last 6000 years, Jesus doesn't care who wins the election and capital gains are INCOME and should be taxed the same as any other.

Is there anything I've forgotten? I'm sure there is. When you get that many criminally insane people on one stage, you might hear anything. Such revivionist reality is to be expected from crazy criminals but for citizens to spout the same shit with no apparent desire to know if anything that leaves their mouths is true, is what drives me crazy.

It's one thing to think the wrong thing. It's quite another to persist in an idea that is so removed from reality, even after being presented with contradictory evidence.

DRC
DRC's picture
I would add that class war

I would add that class war and religious war from the Right is "dividing America," not the unifier in chief or liberals who want to believe in a loyal opposition and a shared concern about America and the values expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance.  One can also suggest that Constitutional Fundamentalism is not really faith in the Constitution as the Founders intended.  There is so much, but you made a great start.

elgiabo
elgiabo's picture
Right many left-wingers and

Right many left-wingers and right-wingers are fed Globalist scripts to spew on their radio shows.

However many Americans are cathcing on to this.

Places like www.prisonplanet.com  and  www.drudgereport.com and www.worldnewsdaily.com and www.newsmax.com are really making a name for themselves as alternative media goes.

elgiabo
elgiabo's picture
www.politcalcompass.org See

www.politcalcompass.org

See where you stand politically.  

bullwinkle
This is the best article I

This is the best article I have encountered that says it all about progressives and Ron Paul and President Obama. Please take a moment to read it.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

It is not an endorsement of Paul.

elgiabo
elgiabo's picture
Okay then defend Obama if you

Okay then defend Obama if you can ?

The truth is Democrats and Obamanoids can't support their idol any longer so all they can do is bash Ron Paul with jello to the wall propaganda.

If Democrats were smart they'd ask Cynthia McKinney to run on the Democrat ticket in 2012 and send Obama back to Indonesia or Kenya !!!!  Otherwise it's going to be one very long year of listening to you guys go on and on....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc72xvz0lgU

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
bullwinkle wrote: There is no

bullwinkle wrote:

There is no duopoly. That is why I support Ron Paul.

Uh huh.  Another Lib.  DRC called that right in an earlier response.

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
elgiabo wrote: If Democrats

elgiabo wrote:

If Democrats were smart they'd ask Cynthia McKinney to run on the Democrat ticket in 2012 and send Obama back to Indonesia or Kenya !!!!  Otherwise it's going to be one very long year of listening to you guys go on and on....

If you were smart, you wouldn't say that any American citizen should be sent "back" to somewhere they didn't come from in the first place.  Unless you're just another "Birther" freak, of course...

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
elgiabo wrote: If Democrats

elgiabo wrote:

If Democrats were smart they'd ask Cynthia McKinney to run on the Democrat ticket in 2012 and send Obama back to Indonesia or Kenya !!!! 

If this kluck weren't a Con of some kind, he wouldn't have used "Democrat" instead of "Democratic."  It's part of their national rhetorical strategy to do that, because "Democratic" sounds so much more democratic than "Democrat." 

Take off, dork.

bullwinkle
The fallacy in this reasoning

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
bullwinkle wrote:The fallacy

bullwinkle wrote:
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

I wouldn't mind you bringing up Obama's faults if you weren't doing it from a disingenuous Lib position; that makes you both dishonest and a hypocrite, because I never saw you write anything on here condemning the illegitimate psychopath who sat in the White House for two terms before Obama.  He was almost certifiable and while I'd  be the first to say Obama's got lots of serious faults, he's better by far than Bush and better by far than any of the flying winged monkeys in the GOP primary.  He's the lesser of evils, which doesn't say much, but it's the reality we're stuck with.  Bush/Cheney cost the country vast fortunes in treasure and materials, not to mention lives sacrificed for the hegemony of corporate oil companies.  Where was your outrage then?  

You obviously hate Obama because you're a LIB/CON of some kind; I dislike him because I don't think he's progressive enough and he's lied to and disrespected the base that put him where he is.  In this case, the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend cannot obtain between you and me because CONS obviously hate him, while I merely dislike him and have no respect for him, and I don't fully consider him the enemy, just a blue dog business Democrat that has no business in the White House.

 

DRC
DRC's picture
U, I think Obama is

U, I think Obama is compromised by being President with a GOPimp House and never had the kind of legislative majority that would allow him to do what he wants to do.  His desire to unite rather than divide and to seek a loyal opposition with rational bipartisanship is wistful rather than insightful, but as you point out, compared to Bush/Cheney, he is better than America deserves.  He just is not the savior utopian romantics wanted.

We put too much focus on the President and not enough on the rest of DC.  A more Progressive President could have had more dramatic conflicts with the forces of Empire, but would have gotten less done to change anything for real people.  As Hedges reminds us, the coup has been done.  I don't share Chris' idea that Obama is dangerous because he preserves hope in the illusion of America, but I understand his point.  My view is that Obama is way better than Clinton, and while he "had" to try the route of reason and unity, his very moderate approach exposes how utterly off the rails his opposition is.   I am not sure a radical Progressive would have been able to make them look so bad because the narrative would be radical v. radical rather than Mr. Nice Guy getting nowhere.

I will wait to put the blue dog collar on him until all the evidence is in.  It is one thing to desire the Purple blend of Blue and Red and another to belive in Corporate.  Likewise, swimming with the sharks without a lot of backup does not mean that you approve of the sharks.  You may have to appear to be one of them so they will not eat you.

Not the solution, but not "the problem," Obama has reversed a lot of the very bad image of America in the world.  It is up to us to build the power base to pull back the empire, and until we do, we had better not place our hope in saviors in high places.  Democracy is not going to be restored by DC. 

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
I think Americans tend to

I think Americans tend to discount their own very important role in change and just blame the guy at the top. It is the same kind of laziness that libertarians practice incessantly, choosing to exercise outrage rather than really do anything about it. They assume, falsely, that the answer to bad leadership is a new set of criminals rather than social activism.

Robindell
Robindell's picture
The educational background of

The educational background of most consevatives would be adequate if you want to take the majority of citizens, who are not the top 1%, back into the stone age.  The psychological perspective of the right wingers can be seen in the life and behavior of someone who was married three times and started seeing his current wife when he was still married to his second wife, who divorced two wives who had illnesses depite the "through sickness and health" statement in the wedding vows, and who instead of explaining his marital problems to the public attacks a moderator who asked about his past conduct.

Corporations and trade associations give money to both groups.  Unions would be crazy to support a party whose candidates want companies to reduce wages of workers while increasing the salaries and perks paid to executives and who complain about there not being enough jobs, and yet attack the unemployed for not having a job, when they somewhere else attacked the administration for not having provided jobs. 

Criticizing the response of progressives with a sweeping generalization is, in fact, an attack.   I have heard plenty of excerpts from conservative shows on Fox or on the radio which are outrageous and consist of either hyperbole or false statements.  Often, the coments are nothing more than insults of progressives.  Certain statements made by conservative commentators are quoted and pointed out by the organization Media Matters for America, which was founded by David Brock, a former conservative turned progressive.

anti-Republicon
I hear ya man, Sometimes I

I hear ya man, Sometimes I feel like Oliver Douglas in the sixties tv sit-com "Green Acres".

 

                   (Correction) This is a reply to post #37