Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Friends of the Earth, CFPB, Heidi Heitkamp, capital structure, Sherrod Brown, Tim Geithner, Chicago Teachers Union, coal plants  
•       •       •

1028 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Nov 2012 at 12:59 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-10 09:36:37 AM  
i've always said, if you want to know if obama is a socialist... ask a farking socialist.
 
2012-11-10 10:10:32 AM  
Have these people never heard of FDR?
 
2012-11-10 10:18:07 AM  

FlashHarry: i've always said, if you want to know if obama is a socialist... ask a farking socialist.


Yeh, pfft, like you can trust a socialist!
 
2012-11-10 10:44:45 AM  
Subby, that's why I am in agreement with the president.
 
2012-11-10 11:32:58 AM  
Obama a socialist? LOL
A Marxist? LOL
A communist? double LOL

He's not a progressive, not even much of a liberal. At best you can consider him a Blue Dog.

The right is so far right now that they'd consider Nixon a liberal
 
2012-11-10 11:49:19 AM  
"Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile, I caught hell for." Earl Warren
 
2012-11-10 12:29:31 PM  
Liberals don't trust Obama to be a liberal based on things he's actually done.

Conservatives think Obama is the most liberal President ever based on the things they think he's done in their make-believe world.
 
2012-11-10 12:44:57 PM  
The most "socialist" thing Obama has done was sign the ACA- which draws its individual mandate from a series of bills dating back to 1989- which were introduced and/or supported by Republicans, including such RINOs as Orrin Hatch.

Compare the ACA with EMTALA, signed by President Reagan, which mandated that hospitals had to provide emergency care to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. Who's socialist?
 
2012-11-10 01:05:32 PM  
I was a socialist before being socialist was cool
 
2012-11-10 01:06:43 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-10 01:07:29 PM  

kmmontandon: Liberals don't trust Obama to be a liberal based on things he's actually done.

Conservatives think Obama is the most liberal President ever based on the things they think he's done in their make-believe world.


I'd also add that the freakshow conservatives consider Obama a 'leftist' because somebody who's center-right is technically waaay to the left of them.
 
2012-11-10 01:07:43 PM  

Slaxl: FlashHarry: i've always said, if you want to know if obama is a socialist... ask a farking socialist.

Yeh, pfft, like you can trust a socialist!


Their just so damn social and so obnoxiously isty!
 
2012-11-10 01:10:45 PM  

Eat More Possum: Obama a socialist? LOL
A Marxist? LOL
A communist? double LOL

He's not a progressive, not even much of a liberal. At best you can consider him a Blue Dog.

The right is so far right now that they'd consider Nixon a liberal


It's beyond that. I've heard people call Bush and Cheney "liberals."
 
2012-11-10 01:12:21 PM  
To be fair, the right trots out the same "most liberal x ever" line for everyone who runs for president. I don't know who is running in 2016. but you can guarantee that he will be called the most liberal candidate ever.

Also, there are so many places one can fall in the political spectrum that everyone is going to piss off multiple factions.
 
2012-11-10 01:12:54 PM  

FlashHarry: i've always said, if you want to know if obama is a socialist... ask a farking socialist.


You mean like Warren Buffet?
 
2012-11-10 01:13:39 PM  

Eat More Possum: The right is so far right now that they'd consider Nixon a liberal


Nixon WAS a liberal. Why do you hate Jesus?
 
2012-11-10 01:14:57 PM  
Don't Troll Me Bro!:
It's beyond that. I've heard people call Bush and Cheney "liberals."

Well, remember neocons are former liberals, for the most part.
 
2012-11-10 01:15:15 PM  

FlashHarry: i've always said, if you want to know if obama is a socialist... ask a farking socialist.


Wouldn't help. They have no clue what a socialist actually believes.
 
2012-11-10 01:16:51 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: It's beyond that. I've heard people call Bush and Cheney "liberals."


Those are the people for which "Liberal" just means "not my side" or "bad." It doesn't matter why or what policies were actually being implemented. And since Bush and Cheney are basically political personas non grata right now, slapping "liberal" on them to separate them from their own cause makes perfect sense.

It's less of a political leaning, and more of a magical word of power to banish it from their plain of existence. The media doesn't agree? Liberal Media. Website said something bad about your candidates? Liberal hackjob website. A candidate is advocating basic social responsibility? LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL...
 
2012-11-10 01:20:21 PM  
Well, if Obama's a socialist, he's also a Nazi because socialism is in the name!
 
2012-11-10 01:21:06 PM  
Regular Compass
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com 

oi50.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-10 01:29:40 PM  
You mean the guy who works for Wall St? That Obama?
 
2012-11-10 01:29:50 PM  

Eat More Possum: Obama a socialist? LOL
A Marxist? LOL
A communist? double LOL

He's not a progressive, not even much of a liberal. At best you can consider him a Blue Dog.

The right is so far right now that they'd consider Nixon a liberal


Nixon? fark, they'd consider Reagan a liberal, if they actually knew anything about his record in office.
 
2012-11-10 01:33:59 PM  
Perhaps that has always been the GOP master plan...to slide so far to the right that the Democrats have to come that way to balance the scale....I voted for Obama because I believe in math and science, equal rights and not starting a fracking war with Iran.....but the erosion of civil liberties because of the fear of another 9/11 and the continuing useless war on drugs needs to go.....I would like to see some of the government powers walked back but that is not even close to happening......even when TJ himself became the Prez he thought that he should have more power....of course I bet he did not think that America would turn putting people in jail into a business...
 
2012-11-10 01:37:42 PM  

Shadowknight: 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.


I think what worries me the most, or at least a lot, is how political positions are all confuzzled. Somehow smaller less intrusive government is supposedly the domain of the R's, yet they're busy trying to stick government noses into all sorts of things (mostly dealing with families and family planning I suppose). At the same time, under the guise of protecting rights, they want to get rid of the things that actually benefit society as a whole and that limit personal rights or freedoms in no way.

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. Where's the party that says do whatever the fark you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else? And no, your feelings being hurt don't count.

And both sides totally agree on things like the Patriot Act and the TSA. You'll never be perfectly safe, and attempts to become so are the biggest potential threats to freedom and liberty. Yes, we have to protect ourselves from the crazies and those who would seek to harm us, but there should be a line in the sand where we say we'll go this far and no further.

Sometimes bad shiat is going to happen. You can't stop it, it's the way of the world. What you can do is attempt to mitigate and prepare for that risk while keeping in mind that our freedom and liberty are just as important, if not more so, than our safety.

/Please don't focus on the cig thing, it's just an example I don't wish to expound upon and is used in lieu of remembering various social engineering laws and taxes passed by the left 
//Sorry for the long rant, but the sheer magnitude of the herpaderp from the right is allowing a lot of issues to be swept under the rug...issues that should be part of the political discourse but aren't because one side is too busy trying to explain reality to a bunch of children with their fingers in their ears going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
 
2012-11-10 01:37:57 PM  
Party Boy:

Love your third chart....so damn true.
 
2012-11-10 01:42:57 PM  
Well, if he's pissing off both factions, he MUST be doing something right.

Jim is driving his car near a volcano with Bob and Dave along for the ride, and the volcano begins to erupt. Bob says Jim should drive away from the volcano, and Dave says Jim should drive into the lava flow in a glorious act of suicide, then driving in a circle around the volcano will piss them both off, but Bob will still be the only person in the car with any goddamn sense.
 
2012-11-10 01:44:55 PM  
Every Democrat that runs for national office anywhere, at any time is "the most librul evah!!!"

This proclamation is made every single time.

One would thnk that at some point folks would get tired of being lied to (over and over and over again). But I guess not.

In four years, whomever gets the Democratic nomination will be "the most librul evah!!!1".

And so on, and so on... 

It should be a surprise to absolutely no one.
 
2012-11-10 01:48:03 PM  

Eat More Possum: 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
 
2012-11-10 01:50:17 PM  
Of course, the difference is, the right's whackjobs have a good many people to espouse their whackery on the Senate and House floors.

Who does the left have now? Bernie Sanders?
 
2012-11-10 01:54:45 PM  

IlGreven: Of course, the difference is, the right's whackjobs have a good many people to espouse their whackery on the Senate and House floors.

Who does the left have now? Bernie Sanders?


We have, on a global scale, the right, and the more right. Who is the representation on the left these days? Kucinich? Maybe somebody else?
 
2012-11-10 01:58:47 PM  

Party Boy: IlGreven: Of course, the difference is, the right's whackjobs have a good many people to espouse their whackery on the Senate and House floors.

Who does the left have now? Bernie Sanders?

We have, on a global scale, the right, and the more right. Who is the representation on the left these days? Kucinich? Maybe somebody else?


Frank, Sanders, Feingold, maybe Warren.
 
2012-11-10 01:59:24 PM  
Um, yeah, TFA, Obama's a Republican. We know this. Move on.

/It's not the end of the world if a Republican is in office, either
//It's an actual, objective problem if someone who's a neo-fascist idiot is in office, but that's a different story.
 
2012-11-10 02:02:18 PM  
The out and out rage I see online really makes me worry about the president's safety. His reelection may have sent more than a few nutbags over the edge. Ironically, their rage is creating jobs. In the Secret Service.
 
2012-11-10 02:05:19 PM  
The GOP is still suffering from Newt Syndrome. They thought they were geniuses, back in the 90s, coming up with a game plan whose core was to villify the other side with a set list of adjectives: sick, warped, twisted, pathetic, un-American, lazy, dependent, etc. On every issue, regardless of their actual position, they just trot out these adjective and keep bleating them. Talk about being small government while demanding that we build more tanks to park in the desert because we don't need them. Talk about entitlement spending while expanding benefits to current retirees.

As long as they suffer from this syndrome, any Democratic president will be a sick, warped, twisted, pathetic, dependent history's greatest monster. It's their starting and ending position.

Which is why it was so striking to see Christie drop the mask for a brief moment and actually say, right now I don't care about politics. Right now I'm just doing my job.

Totally out of character for his party, and totally off the script.
 
2012-11-10 02:05:42 PM  

Party Boy: Regular Compass
[i.imgur.com image 492x412]

[i.imgur.com image 600x600] 

[oi50.tinypic.com image 387x461]


Yeah, those are great charts, and I'm stealing them, if you don't mind. :)
 
2012-11-10 02:25:50 PM  

Summoner101: Frank, Sanders, Feingold, maybe Warren.


I can go with Sanders.

RedVentrue: Yeah, those are great charts, and I'm stealing them, if you don't mind. :)


Go right ahead. It would probably be improved if the crosshairs wee just moved farther to the right and a tiny box as drawn around the two points.
 
2012-11-10 02:40:18 PM  
Pissing off or pissing on?? Because I feel like Im in a golden shower and unlike subby, Im not into that sort of thing.
 
2012-11-10 03:05:12 PM  

R5D4: Every Democrat that runs for national office anywhere, at any time is "the most librul evah!!!"


It's amazing how they've got nearly half the country using the word "liberal" as an insult. Amazing, or worrying. They've also got half the country believing that conservatism is about being a massive dickface to everyone, trampling the poor, killing gays, worshipping jesus and segregating black folk.

Stuff is slightly warped over there. Party Boy summarised it real nice.

Party Boy:

oi50.tinypic.com


That really does need repeating.
 
2012-11-10 03:09:01 PM  
Here's the thing, people.

Now you know the rules of the game, who the players are, and as sure as hell now you know who's the one behind the courtains. This is what you do.

Pressure the government to do what it needs be done. Remind them it was, because of you, they were elected. If they promised change, you're gonna have to act like a literal hive of ants to remind them to give the change.

Don't let them go with the grand bargain, make them respect the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. Make them hesitate to even flirt with the bankers, and the CEOs, and the defense contractors.

Do this, and the good times will surely roll.
 
2012-11-10 03:33:29 PM  
Put Jesus on that chart and really see what the Right does.
 
2012-11-10 04:00:01 PM  
More liberal than Jesus, I think.
 
2012-11-10 04:00:37 PM  
www.politicalcompass.org
 
2012-11-10 04:16:19 PM  
In general, liberals - that is to say, centrists - are a shot to the left of Obama but mostly fine with him. Liberals can trust him to do exactly what liberals do: Stand for nothing, fight hard against the left while making vaguely positive noises about some left-wing social policies and do whatever the far right says while making vaguely negative noises about some right-wing social policies.
 
2012-11-10 04:16:48 PM  

theteacher: [www.politicalcompass.org image 480x400]


I wouldn't brag about it
 
2012-11-10 04:20:28 PM  
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
 
2012-11-10 04:30:53 PM  

skullkrusher: theteacher: [www.politicalcompass.org image 480x400]

I wouldn't brag about it


I know YOU wouldn't. But I do. I'm also pro-gun.
 
2012-11-10 04:34:24 PM  

theteacher: skullkrusher: theteacher: [www.politicalcompass.org image 480x400]

I wouldn't brag about it

I know YOU wouldn't. But I do. I'm also pro-gun.


It's something to be proud of. It means you're an intelligent person.

And, you know, in general I have met few/no actual leftists who are all that interested in gun control. It's one of those centrist liberal positions, a mealy-mouthed reformist attempt to reduce crime without actually doing anything to address the social or economic problems that lead to crime.
 
2012-11-10 04:40:22 PM  

Eat More Possum: Obama a socialist? LOL
A Marxist? LOL
A communist? double LOL

He's not a progressive, not even much of a liberal. At best you can consider him a Blue Dog.

The right is so far right now that they'd consider Nixon a liberal


He DID sign the EPA and OSHA into law...
 
2012-11-10 04:44:07 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Eat More Possum: Obama a socialist? LOL
A Marxist? LOL
A communist? double LOL

He's not a progressive, not even much of a liberal. At best you can consider him a Blue Dog.

The right is so far right now that they'd consider Nixon a liberal

It's beyond that. I've heard people call Bush and Cheney "liberals."


I don't think they mean that in a literal way. "Liberal" is just another epithet to them now; a word bereft of its original semantic content, replaced by "bad, wrong," and "other". They call Bush and Cheney "liberal" because they were so incompetent that it actually hurt the conservative brand. Notice that they never called them those things until after they left office, and they never apply the "liberal" insult to any of their policies.
 
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 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report