66% - Angry, 60% say NEITHER party has the answer...

[Damocles]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ent_policies_60_say_neither_party_has_answers

Tuesday 9/22/2009

Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 36% who are Very Angry.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 30% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry

Adding to the voter frustration is the fact that 60% believe neither Republican nor Democratic political leaders have an understanding of what is needed today.

Among those who are Very Angry about government policies, 80% say that neither political party’s leaders have the answers.

More at link...

 

[Damocles]

Maybe I'm not in the "fringe" as much as I thought.

 

[uscitizen]

That is the roblem Damo it is not the fringe anymore. The anger and fear cheerleading talking heads are destroying our country.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That is the roblem Damo it is not the fringe anymore. The anger and fear cheerleading talking heads are destroying our country.

no they aren't. they are expressing the sentiments felt by that very angry 36%. a HUGE difference, if you could only see it.

 

[uscitizen]

And those who bask in the anger....

 

[Cancel10]

That is the roblem Damo it is not the fringe anymore. The anger and fear cheerleading talking heads are destroying our country.

There's no doubt in my mind that you would have sided with the British in 1776.

Like most liberals, you're a pussy.

 

[Demwit]

There's no doubt in my mind that you would have sided with the British in 1776.

Like most liberals, you're a pussy.

All conservatives sided with the British in 1776.

forming a new country was pretty progressive.

 

[Damocles]

All conservatives sided with the British in 1776.

forming a new country was pretty progressive.

It was radical, not progressive. There is a difference.

 

[Whomever]

It was radical, not progressive. There is a difference.

conservative in it's root form means to resist change.

I stand on my statement.

 

[Damocles]

conservative in it's root form means to resist change.

I stand on my statement.

Your statement was incorrect. While it was not conservative, it was also not progressive. Revolution is by its nature radical.

 

[Whomever]

Your statement was incorrect. While it was not conservative, it was also not progressive. Revolution is by its nature radical.

so radical action is a trait of conservatives? Not republicans of now, but true conservatives?

 

[Damocles]

so radical action is a trait of conservatives? Not republicans of now, but true conservatives?

Radical action is a trait of either right or left-wing politics. You can see radicals who want "revolution" to "free" them from the "socialist" creep in current politics. You can see radicals who wanted revolution to free them from "Bush and his Nazi cronies"...

Radical is not a right/left or conservative/progressive thing.

The radicals today have pictures of Obama with a mustache, the radicals of two years ago held pictures of Bush with that same mustache.

 

[Cancel10]

All conservatives sided with the British in 1776.

Wrong! Even the classical conservatives in England, such as Edmund Burke, were supportive of the revolution. Furthermore, I might add that the classical liberals of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were very different from the so-called "liberals" (socialists) such as yourself. The writings of Thomas Jefferson are a world apart from the ideology of George McGovern.

I am a classical liberal.

There were no "progressives" around, because they were shot for treason.

forming a new country was pretty progressive.

Ha. You "progressives" are little more than appeasers and pushovers. There's no way in hell you would have fought the British. Not only do you hate guns, you're not willing to fight for anything - and you profess hatred for those who DO take a stand.

 

[uscitizen]

Radical action is a trait of either right or left-wing politics. You can see radicals who want "revolution" to "free" them from the "socialist" creep in current politics. You can see radicals who wanted revolution to free them from "Bush and his Nazi cronies"...

Radical is not a right/left or conservative/progressive thing.

I still stand by my statement that those who supported the british diring the American revoloution were conservative by nature.

 

[Cancel10]

I still stand by my statement that those who supported the british diring the American revoloution were conservative by nature.

I stand by my statement that you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

 

[uscitizen]

Prior to the American Revolution, colonial institutions were generally conservative, including established churches, entailed property ownership, and bondage labor. Local land-owning and merchant elites became powerful through patronage from colonial governors and formed "court" factions in the colonial legislatures, opposed by "popular" factions representing less privileged voters. These conservative elites and their followers are often referred to by modern historians as "Tories", the term later used by leaders of the American Revolution to describe those loyal to the Crown. Some of the leading Tory writers included Joseph Galloway, Thomas Hutchinson, Peter Oliver and Samuel Seabury. Following the Revolution, approximately 100,000 loyalists fled the United States, although the great majority remained in America.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Just the first hit in google, you need more?

It appears that little has changed with conservatives

 

[uscitizen]

I stand by my statement that you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

that may be but has no bearing on this issue. read it and weep.

 

[Damocles]

My argument isn't that they were conservatives, it is simply that they were not "progressives"... They were radicals, plain and simple. Just as there are radicals in the "right-wing" today, there were back in that day too. In this case I am sure there were radicals from both the left and the right that were able to band together towards a common goal.

 

[Cancel10]

that may be but has no bearing on this issue. read it and weep.

First off, the article represents the opinion of the writer, i.e. that the individuals mentioned were conservative. Wikipedia articles are contributed by thousands of different users and while it is an excellent resource, it is susceptible to bias. I contend that by modern definition, the appeasers in 1776 were not conservative at all. Likewise, I contend that the ideology of the liberals of the time (i.e. Paine, Jefferson) was a world apart from the bullshit spewed by self-proclaimed "progressives" everywhere, such as yourself.

True conservatives are the ones who are protesting this government by the millions, while you stand idly by as the government erodes our civil liberties and destroys our country's financial security. When I look at the revolutionary war, it is obvious to me that the men who fought and died for what they believed were not progressives. The liberals of the time would be considered conservative by today's definition.

 

[cawacko]

He's using the lame argument of using the literal dictionary meaning of the term conservative and then attempting to apply that meaning to political conservatives of today.