If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   We've heard from the Right: "Most liberal president ever, yadda yadda." Let's check in on the left: "Can liberals trust Obama?" Well, if he's pissing off both factions, he MUST be doing something right   (salon.com) divider line 69
    More: Interesting, Friends of the Earth, CFPB, Heidi Heitkamp, capital structure, Sherrod Brown, Tim Geithner, Chicago Teachers Union, coal plants  
•       •       •

1022 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Nov 2012 at 12:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-10 05:02:04 PM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: Then the D's are banning large soft drinks and making it so you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere another human has stepped foot in during the past week. It's not your job, or anyone elses, to protect people from themselves.


If you're referring to Mayor Bloomberg, he actually switched parties long ago (mainly to avoid having to run in the crowded Democratic primary race). Personally, I think the ban on smoking in parks is silly, but I kinda see where he's coming from. You may not think it's the government's job "to protect people from themselves," but the government usually ends up on the hook for paying for people's bad habits in the long run.
 
2012-11-10 05:03:58 PM  

bwilson27: ftfa- "Here's what we do know: Obama won a very close election ...[Blah blah blah blah horse crap]... Those are the facts."

Here are the unshiatstained facts: Obama 332 electoral votes. Romney: 206.
[www.uwec.edu image 535x800]


The GOP's been afraid of changing 'cause they built their whole life around derp...
 
2012-11-10 05:24:12 PM  
This has always been a stupid assertation. Obama is quite liberal, he's just not as an extreme of a figure to the left as most of the ones on the right are to their base.

List of Obama's liberal policies and accomplishments.

Personally, I think this is more progress than any Democratic president has made since JFK and the civil rights era. It's just that it's NOT ENOUGH for the most outspoken party members.

I bet the President has a lot of sympathy for guys on the right like Jon Huntsman - here's a guy that despite his staunch Republican fiscal policies (cut taxes is the solution to every economic problem!) gets blasted as a socialist libby commifascist because he has the audacity to say we ought to cap greenhouse gasses to prevent global warming and improve the environment.

It's silly.
 
2012-11-10 05:51:37 PM  

Party Boy: Love your third chart....so damn true.
cant take credit for that one. the top one is from political compass, and i hurriedly threw together the middle one


I made that one (on election day, IIRC). Really wanted to put Democrats just a little into the purple... but then I remembered how quickly they caved to Lieberman about pulling the public option from the ACA. That was a pure red move.

The middle one is pretty good, but I'd suggest centering it top-to-bottom instead of keeping it on the Authoritarian side. We really aren't all that authoritarian when we encourage nonsense like SuperPACs, for-profit private prisons, and home schooling... we just have messed-up priorities.
 
2012-11-10 06:14:51 PM  

bwilson27: ftfa- "Here's what we do know: Obama won a very close election ...[Blah blah blah blah horse crap]... Those are the facts."

Here are the unshiatstained facts: Obama 332 electoral votes. Romney: 206.
[www.uwec.edu image 535x800]


Nobody can be happier than I am that we won't have Romney in the White House.

Having said that, if both the popular vote and the electoral vote were reversed, would you be saying that Romney won by a landslide?

If it's a landslide, it's an artificial one.
 
2012-11-10 06:43:20 PM  

HighOnCraic: Eddie Ate Dynamite: Then the D's are banning large soft drinks and making it so you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere another human has stepped foot in during the past week. It's not your job, or anyone elses, to protect people from themselves.

If you're referring to Mayor Bloomberg, he actually switched parties long ago (mainly to avoid having to run in the crowded Democratic primary race). Personally, I think the ban on smoking in parks is silly, but I kinda see where he's coming from. You may not think it's the government's job "to protect people from themselves," but the government usually ends up on the hook for paying for people's bad habits in the long run.


Freedom isn't free I suppose.
 
2012-11-10 07:04:46 PM  

Kibbler: Having said that, if both the popular vote and the electoral vote were reversed, would you be saying that Romney won by a landslide?

If it's a landslide, it's an artificial one.


Interestingly enough, if we had voting laws similar to Australia with compulsory voting, Obama would have won in a popular vote landslide. Among Americans unlikely to vote (so about 40% of Americans), the contest wasn't even close (I think support for Romney was like 17% among non-likely voters, I'll have to find the Nate Silver article)

We do have an artificial system, but there are more factors that help Republicans in the system than Democrats.
 
2012-11-10 07:06:52 PM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: HighOnCraic: Eddie Ate Dynamite: Then the D's are banning large soft drinks and making it so you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere another human has stepped foot in during the past week. It's not your job, or anyone elses, to protect people from themselves.

If you're referring to Mayor Bloomberg, he actually switched parties long ago (mainly to avoid having to run in the crowded Democratic primary race). Personally, I think the ban on smoking in parks is silly, but I kinda see where he's coming from. You may not think it's the government's job "to protect people from themselves," but the government usually ends up on the hook for paying for people's bad habits in the long run.

Freedom isn't free I suppose.


Treating cancer and diabetes isn't free, either.
 
2012-11-10 07:45:46 PM  

Gwyrddu: Kibbler: Having said that, if both the popular vote and the electoral vote were reversed, would you be saying that Romney won by a landslide?

If it's a landslide, it's an artificial one.

Interestingly enough, if we had voting laws similar to Australia with compulsory voting, Obama would have won in a popular vote landslide. Among Americans unlikely to vote (so about 40% of Americans), the contest wasn't even close (I think support for Romney was like 17% among non-likely voters, I'll have to find the Nate Silver article)

We do have an artificial system, but there are more factors that help Republicans in the system than Democrats.


Australia actually has voting preferences as well (if your preferred candidate doesn't win, then your vote goes to the next closest party). For instance, this meant in the last parlimentary election that Greens candidates got some seats because Labor didn't win the seat, but all the labor supporters votes went to the Green candidate. So the seat actually went from "Liberal" (in US terms) to "Socialist Hippie" (again in US terms).

Some Australians complain about this, but some form of this or instant run-off elections in the US would probably benefit the country as a whole. Last time I checked there was some sort agreement being bandied around the states to put forth instant run offs for senate seats. Anyone know anything about that?
 
2012-11-10 07:54:19 PM  

HighOnCraic: Treating cancer and diabetes isn't free, either.


And I disagree with using that as a premise for limiting the rights and freedoms, or even steering the choices, of the people in a land that's referred to as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

If you do so, where do you draw the line? Who makes the distinction for what's okay to decide for other people and what isn't? If you simply tax things at an increased rate based on projected cost to society that's one thing, but it's moved beyond that.
 
2012-11-10 08:11:57 PM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: HighOnCraic: Treating cancer and diabetes isn't free, either.

And I disagree with using that as a premise for limiting the rights and freedoms, or even steering the choices, of the people in a land that's referred to as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

If you do so, where do you draw the line? Who makes the distinction for what's okay to decide for other people and what isn't? If you simply tax things at an increased rate based on projected cost to society that's one thing, but it's moved beyond that.


Meh, I don't see settling for a sixteen-ounce soda as crushing my freedom. I only smoke at home, and I'm okay with that--I smoke MIddleton's Black and Milds, which are fairly strong compared to cigarettes, and I have no problem with not inflicting the smoke on others.
 
2012-11-10 09:26:25 PM  
Well, he's a right-leaning centrist.

Can you trust him to go along with your wide-eyed moonbat crazy political theory that depends on the entirety of humanity to lay down all our grudges and taboos and dance hand in hand while singing about the true meaning of christmas (assuming you're genuinely at the far left end of the spectrum)? No, you lefty moron, he's explicitly told you he's not doing that.

Can you trust him to do or at least put a good attempt in at the rather detailed plans he's laid out as a president and as a candidate, which aren't particularly left-wing but well-grounded, thoroughly backed up by research, and likely to actually accomplish something more than symbolic? Yes. He's been president for 4 damned years, don't even pretend the answer isn't 'yes'.

//We're all aware that the compass is self-affirming bullshiat and not anything resembling actual math or science, right? No one's taking what it says about anyone seriously ... right?
 
2012-11-10 09:39:34 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Can you trust him to go along with your wide-eyed moonbat crazy political theory that depends on the entirety of humanity to lay down all our grudges and taboos and dance hand in hand while singing about the true meaning of christmas (assuming you're genuinely at the far left end of the spectrum)? No, you lefty moron, he's explicitly told you he's not doing that.


Oh, shut the fark up.
 
2012-11-10 10:04:39 PM  

Shadowknight: Liberals like myself, who are realistic, know that actual liberal policies are likely not to happen any time soon. The Right has dragged the dialog so far to their side, that magical window of acceptability is right of Reagan anymore. But, we see Obama as a net win. Even if he is a center-right figure by any measure or estimation in another sane country, he is a step in the right direction. And we based this off his policies and things he's actually done.

The Right makes things up, bases a hateful political religion off it, and proceeds to convert mouthbreathing wackaloos to their cause.


This. I always laugh when people claim to be liberal, progressive and then proudly say they vote Democrat. Democrats would be the conservative party in almost any other nation.
 
2012-11-10 11:06:41 PM  

HighOnCraic: Eddie Ate Dynamite: HighOnCraic: Treating cancer and diabetes isn't free, either.

And I disagree with using that as a premise for limiting the rights and freedoms, or even steering the choices, of the people in a land that's referred to as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

If you do so, where do you draw the line? Who makes the distinction for what's okay to decide for other people and what isn't? If you simply tax things at an increased rate based on projected cost to society that's one thing, but it's moved beyond that.

Meh, I don't see settling for a sixteen-ounce soda as crushing my freedom. I only smoke at home, and I'm okay with that--I smoke MIddleton's Black and Milds, which are fairly strong compared to cigarettes, and I have no problem with not inflicting the smoke on others.


The thing is, you can still buy four 16oz sodas and drink them if you really want to drink that much soda. The large soda ban prevents restaurants from taking advantage of the way your brain works. It can be argued as expanding consumer freedom, just as printing nutritional information on menus and labels expands consumer freedom, at the expense of producer freedom. It's a step closer to free markets, not a step away.
 
2012-11-10 11:53:31 PM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: HighOnCraic: Treating cancer and diabetes isn't free, either.

And I disagree with using that as a premise for limiting the rights and freedoms, or even steering the choices, of the people in a land that's referred to as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

If you do so, where do you draw the line? Who makes the distinction for what's okay to decide for other people and what isn't? If you simply tax things at an increased rate based on projected cost to society that's one thing, but it's moved beyond that.


For me, smoking's a bit different, in that the secondhand smoke affects other people. Sure, in parks it's taking it too far, but in a closed environment, it can get nasty quickly. My thought on this is that smoking should be default out, but businesses can apply to be smoking environmnents, as long as they place that fact prominently and don't allow anyone under 18 in. Pretty much like a liquor license.
 
2012-11-11 12:58:13 AM  

IlGreven: For me, smoking's a bit different, in that the secondhand smoke affects other people. Sure, in parks it's taking it too far, but in a closed environment, it can get nasty quickly. My thought on this is that smoking should be default out, but businesses can apply to be smoking environmnents, as long as they place that fact prominently and don't allow anyone under 18 in. Pretty much like a liquor license.


Yeah that's why I said not to focus on it in my OP with a slashy. There's a whole other conversation and a lot of baggage regarding smoking. My larger premise was that there's been a steady decrease in the things you're allowed to do.

One side is batshiat crazy, the other side is being necessarily centric in the absence of an opposition party. They both have their pet causes they want to impose their will on others to accomplish. Both sides even manage to agree on a lot of the erosions taking place.

In the end a lot of it is subjective and there should be rational discussion, but those discussions are rare and often drowned out because ~50% of the population won't agree the sky is blue. So instead we have a discussion about how Obama has/has not destroyed the economy/brought the economy out of a recession, etc. My point is way too many people are willing to either give up rights and freedoms at the drop of a hat, or are way too eager to force others to give them up.

Liberal or conservative, both sides want to impose at least some part of their morals and values on everyone through laws and taxes.

/Both sides are bad so vote Democratic
//Because Republicans are...I don't even know what word to use...insane?
///But while voting Democratic, let's not go nuts with outlawing the sodas because you don't like looking at fat people or paying for diabetes treatment or whatever the cause du jour and subsequent rationalization are
 
2012-11-11 02:01:17 AM  

clkeagle: Party Boy: Love your third chart....so damn true.
cant take credit for that one. the top one is from political compass, and i hurriedly threw together the middle one

I made that one (on election day, IIRC). Really wanted to put Democrats just a little into the purple... but then I remembered how quickly they caved to Lieberman about pulling the public option from the ACA. That was a pure red move.

The middle one is pretty good, but I'd suggest centering it top-to-bottom instead of keeping it on the Authoritarian side. We really aren't all that authoritarian when we encourage nonsense like SuperPACs, for-profit private prisons, and home schooling... we just have messed-up priorities.


Good job. Its clean.
Also, good points.
 
2012-11-11 09:44:44 AM  
democrats have all but morphed into the early 1990s republicans,
pro-war, authoritarianism (pushed for NDAA, keep renewing patriot act, expanding war zones), they abandoned gun control, they praise their market *solution* that is no solution at all to healthcare (that is the spitting image of a 1990s heritage foundation plan), but perhaps most tellingly they hold an anti-tax position for 99% of the population even though the government is throwing off 1 trillion dollar deficits with no end in sight, and creates a situation where they are unable to provide all the services long term that they still pretend they are champions of. it's why authoritarian's like weaver95 who famously thought the consitution should bend after 9-11 feel so at home in the new democratic party.

enjoy your dad's republican party, democrats.
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report