http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/


http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/733/obamatypicalwhiteke0.jpg

Your link proves he is in touch with the majority of Americans.

Your link proves he is in touch with the majority of Americans.

His "RECORD" shows he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. Number 1. Most Americans aren't that liberal. Yes, he is out of touch with most Americans.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5897/obamasmokinghw0.jpg

His "RECORD" shows he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. Number 1.

Riiiiiiiight.

In overtly rightwing America, that equates to his being "only" 90% conservative leaning, and maybe 10% liberal leaning.

He ....like every other candidate from the two main Parties....was, is and will always be a complete lapdog of huge Corporate interests in America, while paying little more than lip service to the real needs and desires of the citizenry.

Someone should start a thread pointing out just how illiberal Obama is.

His "RECORD" shows he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. Number 1. Most Americans aren't that liberal. Yes, he is out of touch with most Americans.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5897/obamasmokinghw0.jpg

Love the smoking pic. Here's another one for your collection.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/obamaphone.jpg

Cuz America ain't So Grimm as ta need some colorfull dude
blowin some hot air into a pipe { Pied Piper } and conning
entire Towns that their children are at risk and just follow him
and his sweet tune and all will be well.
F'in Lyin Liberal A$$Klown.

on account The Bama just said somethin I think he thought was
smartie,but was ruther stupid.
Said he was in a Bar with Bob Casey { D.Penna.} hack Pol who
beat Rick Santorum by virtue of his Farher's Political clout,and the
discussion turned to Oil prices and Jobs,while they were watchin
the :
Final Four

Um,the Final Four is This weekend.
Last weekend was the Elite 8.
I guess for a Great basketball player,like The Bama,according to
Chaka Fattad ,one need know his College basketball parlance.
Funny fer an Ivy league'r.
NO ...it ain't.

Most Americans aren't that liberal.

Im sorry, but you are wrong. (http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf)

"This report shows that on issue after issue, most Americans agree with progressives and have for decades, despite what we hear from the media." said David Brock, President and CEO of Media Matters. "The conventional wisdom advanced by the media -- that the United States is becoming more and more conservative -- has been debunked repeatedly by independent public polling, but that hasn't stopped them from perpetuating this clearly flawed perception."


Barack Obama is actually in touch with the majority of Americans.

Why do people dignify such stupid threads with replies?

Why do people dignify such stupid threads with replies?

Because the swiftboaters showed us that even the most idiotic claims will be believed by some people if you don't address them.

This isn't CNN. People here are actually somewhat savvy. Let this bullshit die, for the sake of our sanity. Please.

This isn't CNN. People here are actually somewhat savvy. Let this bullshit die, for the sake of our sanity. Please.

I would say people here are pretty average. There are savvy people and there are complete idiots.

I would say people here are pretty average. There are savvy people and there are complete idiots.
Your problem is that you attribute the former to those you agree with politically and the latter to those you don't.

If you're on the ball enough to participate in discussions here, I'd say you're fairly savvy. Regardless of your political inclinations.

Your problem is that you attribute the former to those you agree with politically and the latter to those you don't.

Oh really Mrs. Cleo?

Don't try to read my mind, you suck at it.
:rolleyes:

I'm sure a majority of the posters here would agree that it's a pretty accurate summation of your attitudes towards the people who post here, whether you want to admit it or not.

Why do people dignify such stupid threads with replies?

Because The Bama is tryin like the Dickens to Connect with
Americans.Kinda the opposite of what his Pastor was all about.
Maybe in-between an Oprah and Malcolm X with some James Baldwin,
Eldridge Cleaver and H.Rap Brown.
Cuz the guy is kinda brown,after all.

I'm told the vast majority of Reverend Wright's sermons were quite the opposite of what the media is vilifying him as.

I'm told the vast majority of Reverend Wright's sermons were quite the opposite of what the media is vilifying him as.
This is the same media which is also, paradoxically, the liberal media.

I don't see how anyone can claim that the media is "liberal" or "conservative" when you see these character assassinations occurring all the time. The MSM (as a whole) has no political agenda: Its only agenda is to make money. That is all.

I would say people here are pretty average. There are savvy people and there are complete idiots.

INDEPENDENT! They don't want the Dems or reps shoved down their throats.

McCain is Bush in diapers. Obama & Clinton, are GIMMES.

I won't vote for either the Dem or Rep nominee... both are losers... this country needs change... badly... I'll do a write in... more people need to do this... enough of this crap of check here DEM or REP, enough!

Can't think. Don't vote!

Im sorry, but you are wrong. (http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf)

This is anecdotal but it's just a thought.

If the majority of Americans are as left leaning as you say, why do almost all politicians pretend to be further to the right than they actually are just before an election?

Left and right don't actually exist. They are convenient political fictions designed to serve as propaganda tools.

This is the same media which is also, paradoxically, the liberal media.

I don't see how anyone can claim that the media is "liberal" or "conservative" when you see these character assassinations occurring all the time. The MSM (as a whole) has no political agenda: Its only agenda is to make money. That is all.

No.Doofus brains.Character assassination is what The Liberal media did
to George " Macaca " Allen.They not only played and replayed the
Video of his but also added color commentary.
If YouTube HADN'T been around then those Wright tapes would still
be unheard.
Don't YOU Leftists ever tire or yer double standard bullcrap.

Left and right don't actually exist. They are convenient political fictions designed to serve as propaganda tools.

If you hd a brain You still wouldn't be dangerous.
Just more simple.
As in Stuck on Stupid.

This is anecdotal but it's just a thought.

If the majority of Americans are as left leaning as you say, why do almost all politicians pretend to be further to the right than they actually are just before an election?

JUst ask what Liberal Pol wants to be referred to as a LIBERAL.
Nuff said.
They Frauds.
I juts proved it.

Im sorry, but you are wrong. (http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf)



Barack Obama is actually in touch with the majority of Americans.

I never said that the majority was conservative and the majority isn't liberal either and ESPECIALLY not as far left wing liberal as Obamas ACTUAL VOTING RECORD shows.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5897/obamasmokinghw0.jpg

I never said that the majority was conservative and the majority isn't liberal either and ESPECIALLY not as far left wing liberal as Obamas ACTUAL VOTING RECORD shows.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5897/obamasmokinghw0.jpg

Someone just went thru the Illinois Vote gatheing records and
affirmed that Barack Obama is THE Most Liberal of ALL Illinois
Pols,ever,as per actual voting record.

If the majority of Americans are as left leaning as you say, why do almost all politicians pretend to be further to the right than they actually are just before an election?

Because the conservative corporate media has conned them into believing the myth of the conservative majority.

By the way, you would have known that if you read the article I linked to.

JUst ask what Liberal Pol wants to be referred to as a LIBERAL.

Exactly right.

Now they're progressive, whatever the hell that means.

Because the conservative corporate media has conned them into believing the myth of the conservative majority.

If "them" refers to the faux right-shifting politicians then their pollsters are certainly ripping them off.

Now they're progressive, whatever the hell that means.

Psst!

There is a difference. If you are smart, you will look it up. :thumbs:

Psst!
There is a difference. If you are smart, you will look it up. :thumbs:
"At its core," John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress writes, "progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society." Progressivism is practical and driven by the values that define America morality and have made our country stronger and better. It's a dynamic concept giving the leadership of an up-and-coming generation of politicos - you - the tools to make this nation's future brighter for all."
Holy crap. And I'll bet they want more good and less bad too.


If progressive really meant anything to those calling themselves such, they would have started using the phrase many years ago.

And just think what right wing agenda has done for America.

Built up a one sided Foreign Policy.

Built an entire industry for a type of warfare it will never wage.

Ignored major Investment in matters which would better American people.

Must be really bad to be called a Liberal.

Must be really bad to be called a Liberal.
Maybe you should be talking to the ones who decided that for themselves.

Maybe you should be talking to the ones who decided that for themselves.

It doesnt take much to be labelled a Liberal in America.

The sheep that dont follow the flock are 'liberal sheep' no doubt.

If progressive really meant anything to those calling themselves such, they would have started using the phrase many years ago.

Psst!

News Flash for Mr. Brooks...

http://www.jillstanek.com/mr.%20brooks.jpg

They have been using that phrase for years.
Thomas Paine used it in his book The Rights of Man in 1791.

They have been using that phrase for years.
Thomas Paine used it in his book The Rights of Man in 1791.
Very cute. Obviously I'm referring to the recent rash, sorry, increase of liberals who now cower from that word.

C'mon.

And while where at it, tell me where a progressive differs from a liberal.
In real terms and beliefs, not that tripe that the senior advisor from the Center for American Progress spouted.

First the claim is:

If progressive really meant anything to those calling themselves such, they would have started using the phrase many years ago.

Then when it is pointed out that they have been using that phrase for many, many years. The tune changes. :rolleyes:

Very cute. Obviously I'm referring to the recent rash, sorry, increase of liberals who now cower from that word.

Oh, so you are confused why they have not been using that phrase "many years ago", but only in reference to "the recent rash"... ???

No wonder you are confused. You make no sense whatsoever.

"The recent rash from many years ago"???

What, do you think you are a freakin time traveler? :slap:

I'm sorry but you sound downright insane.



C'mon.

No, YOU c'mon.
Seriously.
You shouldn't drink and post Mr. Brooks.


And while where at it, tell me where a progressive differs from a liberal.
In real terms and beliefs, not that tripe that the senior advisor from the Center for American Progress spouted.

You don't seem capable of understanding but I will tell you anyway.

In brief:
Liberals are people who hold those beliefs, Liberty, human rights, etc.
Progressives are people who actively work to progress toward achieving those goals.

1. Then when it is pointed out that they have been using that phrase for many, many years. The tune changes. :rolleyes:

2. Liberals are people who hold those beliefs, Liberty, human rights, etc.
Progressives are people who actively work to progress toward achieving those goals.
1. If "they" means Thomas Paine then I think you know I'm not talking about "them".
I'm talking about the great unwashed liberal masses who call Randi Rhodes claiming to be progressive who didn't know the word existed ten years ago.
It is nothing more than a new buzzword for those running from "liberal".

2. That's just embarassing.

1. If "they" means Thomas Paine then I think you know I'm not talking about "them".

I don't think you know who you are talking about.


I'm talking about the great unwashed liberal masses who call Randi Rhodes claiming to be progressive who didn't know the word existed ten years ago.
It is nothing more than a new buzzword for those running from "liberal".

There you go again with all the mello-"dhrama" and meanningless rhetoric about non-existant "unwashed" liberal boogeymen.

I swear sometimes I think you are purposely doing an impression of SMW or the Prat just to be funny....then I realize you are serious. And I feel bad for you. :rolleyes:


2. That's just embarassing.

No, actually it is a paraphrase of Paul Krugman but I didn't want to tax your delicate mind.

1. I swear sometimes I think you are purposely doing an impression of SMW or the Prat ....
2. No, actually it is a paraphrase of Paul Krugman but I didn't want to tax your delicate mind.
1. Finally, a compliment from you.

2. Then I'm embarassed for him for saying it and you for repeating it.

It's stupid.

1. Finally, a compliment from you.

If you think that is a compliment then I have some ammunition to sell you (http://cbs2chicago.com/national/Army.arms.dealer.2.687044.html).

:lolhit:


It's stupid.

I am in awe of your deep, intellectual rebuttal of such complex subject matter.

:rolleyes:

I am in awe of your deep, intellectual rebuttal of such complex subject matter.

:rolleyes:

Your constant sniping certainly doesn't make you look "deep" or "intellectual.

If you think that is a compliment then I have some ammunition to sell you (http://cbs2chicago.com/national/Army.arms.dealer.2.687044.html).

:lolhit:
that really deserves it own thread.:slap:

His "RECORD" shows he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. Number 1.

Wasn't John Kerry "the most liberal Senator in the Senate" in the last election? Funny how conservatives keep changing who the most liberal senator is each election.

Wasn't John Kerry "the most liberal Senator in the Senate" in the last election? Funny how conservatives keep changing who the most liberal senator is each election.
Pop quiz: What year was Obama first elected to the Senate?

Wasn't John Kerry "the most liberal Senator in the Senate" in the last election? Funny how conservatives keep changing who the most liberal senator is each election.

You are correct, that is the same charge they make against every Democrat running for President.

You are correct, that is the same charge they make against every Democrat running for President.
"Every" makes this really silly.

Just name three.

"Every" makes this really silly.

Just name three.
Gore wasn't generally called that, but then again, he wasn't a sitting Senator. The last sitting Democratic Senator to run for President before Kerry was McGovern. Was he called "the most liberal in the Senate"? That's a good question.

The last sitting Democratic Senator to run for President before Kerry was McGovern. Was he called "the most liberal in the Senate"? I'm sure he was, although I don't think there were any "official ratings" back then.

Gore wasn't generally called that, but then again, he wasn't a sitting Senator. The last sitting Democratic Senator to run for President before Kerry was McGovern. Was he called "the most liberal in the Senate"? That's a good question.

McGovern was partially brain dead.Actually ran on a platform of
- raising taxes -.Talk about stupid.
Pretty much what Hillary & Obama are preachin.

I'm sure he was, although I don't think there were any "official ratings" back then.

Oh ! gOOt.Yer finally Not sure about somethin.
On second reading,I guess you said you were sure.

Damn

One of these days,yer gonna be sure about Not bein so sure.
Probably In My Dreams.

You are correct, that is the same charge they make against every Democrat running for President.

and most don't know what that means. "liberal" has just become a 4 letter word.

and most don't know what that means. "liberal" has just become a 4 letter word.
"liberal" has been a curse for all of my adult life.

the very thought that you can play fast and loose with a law, going by a guess at intent, and not it's letter is contrary to the very idea of rule by law.

the very thought that you can play fast and loose with a law, going by a guess at intent, and not it's letter is contrary to the very idea of rule by law.


I'm sorry..I don't understand what you are saying here.

I'm sorry..I don't understand what you are saying here.
liberal and conservative come from how people look at interpreting the Constitution-assumed intent or by the letter of the law. a living document thru the courts, or amendment.

. a living document thru the courts, .

If the consitution was ever alive,,,,it would died long ago from being trampled.....

If the consitution was ever alive,,,,it would died long ago from being trampled.....
i want to laugh...but you're right.

liberal and conservative come from how people look at interpreting the Constitution

They predate the constitution actually, as evidenced by the writings of Sir Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. There have always been advocates for monarchy and concentrated wealth and then advocates of liberty and equality.

I would say how they interpret the constitution stems from whether they have a liberal or conservative worldview.

You are correct, that is the same charge they make against every Democrat running for President.

I've noticed a distinct trend,that is no longer a trend in Politics when
a geneal election nears.The DNC and it's obvious backers,{those
prone to daily talking points} always pull out the old Democratic
playbook.
That being :
Scare Seniors.
Make parents believe their children are at risk.
Say the Economy has never been worse.
That Republicans will drive the Economy into ruin.
That the Rcih don't pay nearly their fair share of the burden.
The Environment is all but doomed,unless we Elect a Caring Democrat.

Republicans don't do that.
They don't use scare tactics,or make braggadocio claims.
They just admit to NOT Raising Taxes.
Maintaining a Strong Military.
They are for Better schools.
A Strong and vibrant Economy.
And Yes,if a Democrat is Liberal { and his voting record proves it }
We call the candidate what he/she is.

I just don't understand why the old Dem Playbook,even works.
Unless that's the Idiom,of why it's " Old Playbook ".

Is All.

There have always been advocates for monarchy and concentrated wealth and then advocates of liberty and equality. I would say how they interpret the constitution stems from whether they have a liberal or conservative worldview.

I was wondering Dharma; do you think there are any politicians currently in Congress who are truly *advocates of liberty and equality*, as opposed to their being advocates for the elite classes and for concentrated wealth?? IOW, is there a single Washingtonian politician you know of who is an actual liberal?

Because if there is one, I have not heard of them.

Maybe Bernie Saunders........and too, there was Paul Wellstone, who probably came close to being a person who actually advocated liberty and equality, but he is no longer with us.

(note; a person like Thom Hartman is who comes to mind to me, in having evidenced the fact that he is truly *a liberal*. Of course, the powers-that-be are never going to let an actual liberal like him within a million miles of having any real political power, such as serving in Congress.)

Maybe Bernie Saunders........and too, there was Paul Wellstone, who probably came close to being a person who actually advocated liberty and equality, but he is no longer with us.

Bernie Sanders was the first person that came to mind for me in the Senate.
There are people in the house, like Sander Levin, who I have met and spoken to in person, who seems like a solid liberal. (He is more liberal then his brother Carl in the senate, although I am sure someone could nit-pick his voting record to try and argue otherwise, as can be done with anyone in Congress)

There are a few good solid liberals who are running for Congress this year, like Gary Peters here in Michigan and Peggy Flanaghan in Oklahoma.



(note; a person like Thom Hartman is who comes to mind to me, in having evidenced the fact that he is truly *a liberal*. Of course, the powers-that-be are never going to let an actual liberal like him within a million miles of having any real political power, such as serving in Congress.)

Thom Hartmann reminds me of a line I heard when I was a kid, regarding politcal office, "Typically, the only person smart enough to do the job doesn't want it."

There are people in the house, like Sander Levin, who I have met and spoken to in person, who seems like a solid liberal. (He is more liberal then his brother Carl in the senate, although I am sure someone could nit-pick his voting record to try and argue otherwise, as can be done with anyone in Congress)

Yes, I just went and looked at his voting record.

Even this most-liberal-one-I-can-think-of politician voted against his own party and sided with the GOP in voting for a bill to provide funding in Iraq without setting withdrawal deadlines --that some Democrats advocated-- for troops.

He also voted against his own party and sided with the GOP in voting for giving tax breaks and incentives to huge oil and gas companies. (but hey....with the meager profits of only 25 billion dollars or so a year that these poor companies are having to struggle to get by on, it's easy to see why our wise (GOP) politicians decided they needed the taxpayers to hand them a few more billions in tax breaks. Wouldn't want the poor unfortunate owners of these companies suffering unnecessarily and having to go without food or heat, after all)

That's something along the lines of what i was talking about in saying that there is no person in Congress who is truly liberal.......i.e., who is dedicated to advocating liberty and equality.

I'm sure he was, although I don't think there were any "official ratings" back then.

Well considering your knowledge and incite is far superiour to our own... I'll have to say that's a fact and believe you 100%

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That's something along the lines of what i was talking about in saying that there is no person in Congress who is truly liberal.......i.e., who is dedicated to advocating liberty and equality.

Yes, conservative philosophy has infected the Democratic party to an alarming degree.

There was something interesting that I got from Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine. She was quoting Milton Friedman who was talking about his voodoo economic ideas and how he intended to use conservative think tanks to "keep his ideas alive and in the public's mind". He was specifically referring to the aftermath of a shock to the society so that his ideas could be implimented while the people are in a state of shock and unable to object. (which we saw with the Patriot Act after 9-11 and again in the wave of privatization in the aftermath of Katrina)

I think he has a good point in that some external group is useful in keeping classic liberal ideas alive and in the public's mind. That is why I support progressive think tanks such as Rockridge Institute or Center for American Progress.

The fight to restore America won't be won in one election cycle, so we need to set up and support the strategic resources that will help us in the fight going foreward.

I've noticed a distinct trend,that is no longer a trend in Politics when
a geneal election nears.The DNC and it's obvious backers,{those
prone to daily talking points} always pull out the old Democratic
playbook.
That being :
Scare Seniors.
Make parents believe their children are at risk.
Say the Economy has never been worse.
That Republicans will drive the Economy into ruin.
That the Rcih don't pay nearly their fair share of the burden.
The Environment is all but doomed,unless we Elect a Caring Democrat.

Republicans don't do that.
They don't use scare tactics,or make braggadocio claims.
They just admit to NOT Raising Taxes.
Maintaining a Strong Military.


You're so naive. Republicans don't use scare tactics? Like what they say will happen in the war if a Liberal get nominated? That Democrats will drive the Economy into ruin by raising taxes? Making parents believe their children are at risk from the Homosexuals?

Well considering your knowledge and incite is far superiour to our own... I'll have to say that's a fact and believe you 100%

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
OMG!! The irony! *dies of laughter*

I think he has a good point in that some external group is useful in keeping classic liberal ideas alive and in the public's mind. That is why I support progressive think tanks such as Rockridge Institute or Center for American Progress.

The fight to restore America won't be won in one election cycle, so we need to set up and support the strategic resources that will help us in the fight going foreward.

The ""fight to restore America"".............?!?!?!?

I see where we differ now.

You are laboring under the impression that America can still be dragged back from its deathbed, and saved from the ravages of having underwent 60 years of uber-Conservative political rule and the creation of a National Security State...(iow, the creation of the climate in which a forever war against the supposed evildoers is waged, and the massive resources of the nation are directed to military spending instead of being spent to maintain the infrastructure or to keep the People strong, educated and healthy).

I disagree.

It's done. The final chapter is being written as we speak. The seeds of bankruptcy and the demise of democracy were planted decades ago by the ConservaCorporatist architects of modern day America, and are now in full flower.

_________________________________

""Fascism in America won’t come with jackboots, book burnings, mass rallies, and fevered harangues, nor will it come with black helicopters or tanks on the street. It won’t come like a storm—but as a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: Everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality will have taken its place. All the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns—plenty of bread and circuses. But “consent of the governed” will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small and privileged group who rule for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons. The rulers will act in secret, for reasons of “national security,” and the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, state murder of “enemies” selected by the leader, undeclared wars, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new “security structures” targeted at the populace. In time, this will be seen as “normal,” as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone. It will all seem normal.”

You're so naive. Republicans don't use scare tactics? Like what they say will happen in the war if a Liberal get nominated? That Democrats will drive the Economy into ruin by raising taxes? Making parents believe their children are at risk from the Homosexuals?

Democrats WILL Raise Taxes!.That's an Historic reality.
Why did al-Qaeda,OBL and deceased al-Zarqawi ALL agree
that another Bush term,would make it far more difficult their
success than a Johnny Frauds { John Kerry }.
The Terrorist were prayin to Allah that Kerry would win.

Wise-Up

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/


http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/733/obamatypicalwhiteke0.jpg

Why do people even vote for these people?

We need a 3rd party... big time!

Clinton is no better... is this all the DEMs have on their plate? Couple that w/the REPs McCain... American is SCREWED (sorry for the caps... yes, I am shouting this time Sedan!)

Actually AQ would prefer to see McCain elected President.

A strong President means more support for AQ.

The ""fight to restore America"".............?!?!?!?

I see where we differ now.

You are laboring under the impression that America can still be dragged back from its deathbed, and saved from the ravages of having underwent 60 years of uber-Conservative political rule and the creation of a National Security State...(iow, the creation of the climate in which a forever war against the supposed evildoers is waged, and the massive resources of the nation are directed to military spending instead of being spent to maintain the infrastructure or to keep the People strong, educated and healthy).

Guilty as charged.
I do believe some things are worth fighting for and possibly dying for. Just as many of the Founding fathers sacrificed their lives for something they believed in.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


I disagree.

It's done. The final chapter is being written as we speak. The seeds of bankruptcy and the demise of democracy were planted decades ago by the ConservaCorporatist architects of modern day America, and are now in full flower.

I know this, "This too shall pass".
And I believe that sometimes things have to get worse in order to get better.

We also have to learn from the past.

“Only a crisis produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. " - Milton Friedman

That is what progressives need to concentrate on building and supporting, are the think tanks, PACs, and any groups of people working towards and supporting a common progressive goal, in order to keep those ideas laying around. They just need to keep politically active. No Democracy can survive if the people are not politically active. Progressives need to write and speak out just like the socialists of the 1920s and 30s and people like Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Edison and John Keynes did, so the ideas articulated by Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were there for FDR to pick up after the Great Depression struck.

You are right, the consequences of the conservatives policies are going to be severe, but after the smoke clears, we need to make sure that whoever is left can find the ideas that do work.

.

Why do people even vote for these people?

We need a 3rd party... big time!
With all this talk about needing a 3rd party, you'd think someone would get off his rear end and start one.

Actually AQ would prefer to see McCain elected President.

A strong President means more support for AQ.

IF what you say is true... America is screwed... We (US) needs to pull back, take care of our own, etc.

More money overseas is not the answer... that is what both parties are pushing!

America first... all else second... IF we got out of the FACES of those overseas I believe we (US) would be better off. I realize lots of people disagree w/this.

There are dozens, probably hundreds, of third parties in this country.

With all this talk about needing a 3rd party, you'd think someone would get off his rear end and start one.

There is a 3rd party but it gets trashed at every election!

I will do a write in and yes, the candidate is an INDEPENDENT. Unfortunatley too many folks check that "dems/reps" ticket... I chalk it up to them not being able to think for themselves....

There are dozens, probably hundreds, of third parties in this country.

FEW candidates identify themselves as Independents because of the Dem's/Reps flavor in this country so they try to identify w/one or the other otherwise they are totally nixed.

So sad forAmerica... Clinton/Obama or McCain... sad choices...

With all this talk about needing a 3rd party, you'd think someone would get off his rear end and start one.

Vote for them... even if they are write ins...

Can you even imagine what would happen if the reps/dems lost to an Independent... I'm sure it would go to the electrial vote... anything to trash what the people want but the people have to start somewhere!

There are dozens, probably hundreds, of third parties in this country.
I meant a viable third party. The only way we can get one of those is if it's started by people who already have the power, money, and recognition to do so.

Vote for them... even if they are write ins...

Can you even imagine what would happen if the reps/dems lost to an Independent... I'm sure it would go to the electrial vote... anything to trash what the people want but the people have to start somewhere!
It's not going to happen. In any democratic society, parties will be formed, politicians will join those parties, and those parties will win most of the elections. In the US specifically, this has taken the form of a two-party system because (1) the election process causes it to be so, and (2) the two major parties cover the vast majority of the American political spectrum. There is simply no room for third parties.

I meant a viable third party. The only way we can get one of those is if it's started by people who already have the power, money, and recognition to do so.

There is no politician to my knowlege that would give up the money associated with the REPS/DEMS short of the Independents.

Just been watching the news... standard parties are all the same... IF Americans vote for these idiots they deserve everything they get... McCain... more of the same... Obama/Clinton... ouch on the taxes... gotta support those illegals you know...

Only Independents offer something different but they don't have the money you speak of and the American people are not at a point where it is hurting them enough to support something other then the standard parties.

Nomad, I hope you know that "independent" is not a party.

Democrats WILL Raise Taxes!.That's an Historic reality.
Why did al-Qaeda,OBL and deceased al-Zarqawi ALL agree
that another Bush term,would make it far more difficult their
success than a Johnny Frauds { John Kerry }.
The Terrorist were prayin to Allah that Kerry would win.

Wise-Up

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving my point.

Nice to see you back dna. :)

Thanks for proving my point.

Not that you had a point,just a silly political bone of
contention.
Butts...fer the sake of argument,let's assume you did have
a point.
Wood dat point bees on top yer head in a { Wizard of Oz}
Tin Man rig er like maybe a Steel Workers tin foil memory
after double shift and no beer afterward.
Sometimes a Beer is more rewarding that a Liberals POV
after an Election victory.
At least one can enjoy a good burp/

Nomad, I hope you know that "independent" is not a party.
There is, curiously enough, an Independence Party. I doubt this is what Nomad was referring to, but there it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_America

There is, curiously enough, an Independence Party. I doubt this is what Nomad was referring to, but there it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_America
Yes, when I saw that you had replied to this thread I knew you were going to correct me somehow. But like you said, that isn't what nomad was referring to, and that isn't what people mean when they call themselves independent. Therefore I'm still correct.

Yes, when I saw that you had replied to this thread I knew you were going to correct me somehow. But like you said, that isn't what nomad was referring to, and that isn't what people mean when they call themselves independent. Therefore I'm still correct.
I know you were. I wasn't insinuating that you weren't.

Nomad, I hope you know that "independent" is not a party.

No it's not but it sure would make a good name for one as we definitely need a 3rd party in this country.

One can dream....

I don't think there should be a party called the "Independent Party". That would just cause confusion between independents, who belong to no party, and the new "Independents".

I don't think there should be a party called the "Independent Party". That would just cause confusion between independents, who belong to no party, and the new "Independents".

Good point. I was thinking "Independent" of Rep or Dem but you are right about possible confusion w/registered independents.

Still think a third party for candidates who are not puppets of the current two parties can run under is a good idea.

We have lots of "third parties". The problem is that none of them represent a large enough section of the population to challenge Republicans and Democrats on anything higher than a local level.

We have lots of "third parties". The problem is that none of them represent a large enough section of the population to challenge Republicans and Democrats on anything higher than a local level.

Thats because our system is "winner take all" at the federal level, which only leaves room for two parties.

We have lots of "third parties". The problem is that none of them represent a large enough section of the population to challenge Republicans and Democrats on anything higher than a local level.


Yes we do but none are "viable" for a 3rd major party. Basically they are all special interest groups.

Here's a list... some are pretty funny:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Thats because our system is "winner take all" at the federal level, which only leaves room for two parties.
It's high time federal elections adopted the Schulze method.

It's high time federal elections adopted the Schulze method.

That is much too complicated for federal elections. It would require computerized tallying which very few people trust, rightfully so.

Instant runoff voting would serve the same purpose much more simply and with more confidence. You can do instant runoff on hand-counted paper ballots.

That is much too complicated for federal elections. It would require computerized tallying which very few people trust, rightfully so.

Instant runoff voting would serve the same purpose much more simply and with more confidence. You can do instant runoff on hand-counted paper ballots.
The problem with IRV is, from a democratic standpoint, it has little advantage compared to the present system. There are a number of criteria that those who study this topic use to measure how democratic a system is, and IRV fails many of those, including the Condorcet criterion. The primary advantage of IRV would be to introduce ranked voting to voters, but it has little advantage beyond that. Approval voting satisfies more criteria (albeit not the Condorcet criterion), and has the additional property (which may or may not be an advantage) that it is very similar to the present system and thus would be trivial to implement. IRV would not eliminate the two-party system, and indeed is almost as bad as the present plurality system in terms of preserving it.

The problem with IRV is, from a democratic standpoint, it has little advantage compared to the present system. There are a number of criteria that those who study this topic use to measure how democratic a system is, and IRV fails many of those, including the Condorcet criterion. The primary advantage of IRV would be to introduce ranked voting to voters, but it has little advantage beyond that. Approval voting satisfies more criteria (albeit not the Condorcet criterion), and has the additional property (which may or may not be an advantage) that it is very similar to the present system and thus would be trivial to implement. IRV would not eliminate the two-party system, and indeed is almost as bad as the present plurality system in terms of preserving it.

The Condorcet criterion is too high a standard to expect from federal elections because it cannot always be met, even in systems that support it. What would we do, hold re-dos until the criterion is met? That would get expensive. Our current system doesn't meet it either. Very few systems do.

IRV would not support a two party system the way our current winner-take-all system does because it introduces proportional representation which would give other parties much more of a say in the political system and would end the stranglehold on power of the two big parties. It would be a much simpler system to implement and operate and it would be the easiest for the average person to comprehend.

The Condorcet criterion is too high a standard to expect from federal elections because it cannot always be met, even in systems that support it. What would we do, hold re-dos until the criterion is met? That would get expensive. Our current system doesn't meet it either. Very few systems do.

IRV would not support a two party system the way our current winner-take-all system does because it introduces proportional representation which would give other parties much more of a say in the political system and would end the stranglehold on power of the two big parties. It would be a much simpler system to implement and operate and it would be the easiest for the average person to comprehend.
Approval voting is probably easier for people to understand than IRV (especially when people are asked to include rankings for candidates they've never heard of in tiny political parties).

It's true that the Condorcet criterion is more theoretical than practical, primarily because voter turnout is somewhere around 50% usually. However, shouldn't the replacement voting system for plurality be as democratic as possible? The way IRV works, voting for a third party candidate over a "lesser of the two evils candidate" could result in the greater of the two evils being elected. That will discourage people from voting for third parties above their preferred of the two frontrunners, and perpetuate the two-party system. As for the Schulze method being counted by computers...aren't optical scan ballots counted by computers as well? And they're probably the best thing we have. They could easily be adapted for a ranked (or approval) voting system, and you still have the paper trail that you don't generally get with electronic voting machines. And there would be no need for a re-vote, just like with any other voting system except for Louisiana's.

Also, I don't see how, exactly, IRV would introduce proportional representation, unless other voting reforms (such as a parliamentary system) were introduced at the same time, and a parliamentary system especially would require an amendment to the Constitution. IRV is only marginally better than the current plurality system, and approval voting is only marginally better than IRV. A Condorcet method like Schulze or Ranked Pairs is what the ultimate goal should be, and if a system like IRV or approval is to be used, it should be seen only as a temporary measure until a more democratic process can be approved.

Not that you had a point,just a silly political bone of
contention.
Butts...fer the sake of argument,let's assume you did have
a point.
Wood dat point bees on top yer head in a { Wizard of Oz}
Tin Man rig er like maybe a Steel Workers tin foil memory
after double shift and no beer afterward.
Sometimes a Beer is more rewarding that a Liberals POV
after an Election victory.
At least one can enjoy a good burp/

Now you're the one who doesn't have a point. Speak english please.