Massachusetts in play???

[blackascoal]

You know what? Things rarely have one explanation and usually involve a confluence of events.

I guess I am just shocked because I never thought that Obama was what you thought he was, so to me, what is the big surprise? You accused Hillary supporters like Care of whining and taking their ball and going home. I don't know where you ever got the idea that Obama could run on a campaign of withdrawing from the war against terror. I think you are too rigid.

Perhaps you need to re-read my posts my friend. I've always had questions about Obama, but gave him the benefit of doubt. I believe I was the first Obama supporter to question where he was going with his campaign and created a thread to discuss it (What bothers me abouit Obama). Never saw him as the messiah, just an honest politician. Admitedly, I was wrong.

My issue with Care was her belief that Hillary was all things woman and she spoke for all women .. which I think is the same issue you and I argued about.

Don't get it twisted .. my problems with Obama doesn't mean I think Hillary Clinton would have been any better .. I don't.

That being said, you may indeed be correct .. my beliefs may be too rigid for American politics.I am sick to death of watching innocent people mass-murdered for our enjoyment and because it makes us "feel safer."

I am sick to death of watching continued overt injustice that nobody wants to do anything about and the continued deterioration of this nation .. that nobody wants to do anything about.

... and I'm sick to death of watching the okey-doke Americans fall for like children chasing candy.

What I believed about Obama was his insistence that we needed to not only remove troops from Iraq, but address the mindset that got us into that debacle. That didn't mean withdrawing from the so-called war on terror HOAX .. but it meant to me addressing it in a more sane and productive manner that didn't leave countless women and children dead. I'm real sure that I was not the only one with that interpretation.

Obama and his supporters don't have to worry about me, but as I've demonstrated with the link, I'm far from being the only one who is seeing through the weakness of Barack Obama.

 

[Cypress]

THE LEFT votes for Nadar, which is their right. I KNOW that you don't owe ANY one party your vote, but the pretend that your failure to vote for Obama signals ANYTHING other that an "I'm taking my ball and going home" perspective is ignoring what it is you and other leftists are doing. In 1962 the left attempted to redifine itself with the Port Huron Statement and that accomplished ZERO. The left has the unfortunate history of every generation of 2, redefining itself to it's own detriment. The US is NOT leftist in way shape or form of the world. Leftists end up getting left out of the governing process in this country because they lack the foresight of incrementalism. The right in this country has been able to coalesce around a candidate, even if he does not tow their line. This is because the right KNOWS that the Reagans and the Bushes will do ENOUGH to appease them at election time. They may not get a law outlawing abortion in the US, but they will get a Scalia and a Roberts and an Alito on the court that will do the job for them. No nominee to the SCOTUS is a sure thing, but in the case of affirmative action or abortion, it is the closest they will ever get. Don't vote for Obama if you don't want, but then don't cry when the rightwinger that got elected in Obama's stead nomiates "strict constructionists" which is just code for no right to privacy and no encouragement of changes in race relations and gender equality. America as a whole is centrist, and if either party would jetison their fringe, you would discover that. Politics, especially American politics, is SUPPOSED to be about finding a compromise. It is about giving some to get some back. You call me a centrist, I am more of a pragmatist. Pramagtism gets things done. Maybe not the point or income redistribution and pacifism that you want, but it does get things done.

"The US is NOT leftist in way shape or form of the world. Leftists end up getting left out of the governing process in this country because they lack the foresight of incrementalism

This government isn't right wing because too few of the politically active liberal base won't come out to vote for a Democratic centrist. I don't even believe that the american people, at large, are inherently rightwing or conservative. Although, there are indeed elements of cultural conservatism in this country. The american people at large are liberal on economic and domestic issues.

This government remains rightwing and conservative because of intentional and concerted efforts to keep voter turnout low and to disenfranchise people from voting.

This is the only developed democracy on the planet that routinely has only about 50% of its eligible citizens vote in a presidential election. In an off year, congressional election, we're lucky to have 30% of americans vote.

Other democracies routinely have 80 or 90% of the electorate turn out to vote.

Why is that? Because this elections in this country have been structured and institutionalized to ensure low voter turnouts. And intentional impediments have been place in the way of voting, that ensure that working people, people of color, and disenfranchised people are disproportionately affected. You know who's not voting, for the most part? Working people, the poor, single Moms, and communities of color.

Do you know what kind of government we'd have if 90% of eligible americans voted? It might not be a Swedish style social democracy. But, I can guarantee you it would be a progressive government on balance, that was closer to the Swedish model than it is to the Dick Cheney/Jerry Falwell model.

 

[Cancel7]

Perhaps you need to re-read my posts my friend. I've always had questions about Obama, but gave him the benefit of doubt. I believe I was the first Obama supporter to question where he was going with his campaign and created a thread to discuss it (What bothers me abouit Obama). Never saw him as the messiah, just an honest politician. Admitedly, I was wrong.

My issue with Care was her belief that Hillary was all things woman and she spoke for all women .. which I think is the same issue you and I argued about.

Don't get it twisted .. my problems with Obama doesn't mean I think Hillary Clinton would have been any better .. I don't.

That being said, you may indeed be correct .. my beliefs may be too rigid for American politics.I am sick to death of watching innocent people mass-murdered for our enjoyment and because it makes us "feel safer."

I am sick to death of watching continued overt injustice that nobody wants to do anything about and the continued deterioration of this nation .. that nobody wants to do anything about.

... and I'm sick to death of watching the okey-doke Americans fall for like children chasing candy.

What I believed about Obama was his insistence that we needed to not only remove troops from Iraq, but address the mindset that got us into that debacle. That didn't mean withdrawing from the so-called war on terror HOAX .. but it meant to me addressing it in a more sane and productive manner that didn't leave countless women and children dead. I'm real sure that I was not the only one with that interpretation.

Obama and his supporters don't have to worry about me, but as I've demonstrated with the link, I'm far from being the only one who is seeing through the weakness of Barack Obama.

Well I am tired of all of those things too. Maybe I am naïve, but I still have some hope that Obama will be less likely to kill people overseas, once he is President.

 

[Cancel7]

"The US is NOT leftist in way shape or form of the world. Leftists end up getting left out of the governing process in this country because they lack the foresight of incrementalism

This government isn't right wing because too few of the politically active liberal base won't come out to vote for a Democratic centrist. I don't even believe that the american people, at large, are inherently rightwing or conservative. Although, there are indeed elements of cultural conservatism in this country. The american people at large are liberal on economic and domestic issues.

This government remains rightwing and conservative because of intentional and concerted efforts to keep voter turnout low and to disenfranchise people from voting.

This is the only developed democracy on the planet that routinely has only about 50% of its eligible citizens vote in a presidential election. In an off year, congressional election, we're lucky to have 30% of americans vote.

Other democracies routinely have 80 or 90% of the electorate turn out to vote.

Why is that? Because this elections in this country have been structured and institutionalized to ensure low voter turnouts. And intentional impediments have been place in the way of voting, that ensure that working people, people of color, and disenfranchised people are disproportionately affected. You know who's not voting, for the most part? Working people, the poor, single Moms, and communities of color.

Do you know what kind of government we'd have if 90% of eligible americans voted? It might not be a Swedish style social democracy. But, I can guarantee you it would be a progressive government on balance, that was closer to the Swedish model than it is to the Dick Cheney/Jerry Falwell model.

Really good points.

 

[blackascoal]

THE LEFT votes for Nadar, which is their right. I KNOW that you don't owe ANY one party your vote, but the pretend that your failure to vote for Obama signals ANYTHING other that an "I'm taking my ball and going home" perspective is ignoring what it is you and other leftists are doing. In 1962 the left attempted to redifine itself with the Port Huron Statement and that accomplished ZERO. The left has the unfortunate history of every generation of 2, redefining itself to it's own detriment. The US is NOT leftist in way shape or form of the world. Leftists end up getting left out of the governing process in this country because they lack the foresight of incrementalism. The right in this country has been able to coalesce around a candidate, even if he does not tow their line. This is because the right KNOWS that the Reagans and the Bushes will do ENOUGH to appease them at election time. They may not get a law outlawing abortion in the US, but they will get a Scalia and a Roberts and an Alito on the court that will do the job for them. No nominee to the SCOTUS is a sure thing, but in the case of affirmative action or abortion, it is the closest they will ever get. Don't vote for Obama if you don't want, but then don't cry when the rightwinger that got elected in Obama's stead nomiates "strict constructionists" which is just code for no right to privacy and no encouragement of changes in race relations and gender equality. America as a whole is centrist, and if either party would jetison their fringe, you would discover that. Politics, especially American politics, is SUPPOSED to be about finding a compromise. It is about giving some to get some back. You call me a centrist, I am more of a pragmatist. Pramagtism gets things done. Maybe not the point or income redistribution and pacifism that you want, but it does get things done.

This may come as a shock to you my friend, but there are FAR more voters on the left than the couple of million who voted for Nader. The VAST majority of the left voted for Gore .. and his center-right ruinning mate Joe Lieberman.

Obama wouldn't be the nominee if not for the left.

The centrists in the Democratic Party supported Bush in his attack on Iraq and they supported and capitulated to Bush and his brain-dead policies, including the Patriot Act .. out of political expediency .. this while the left was fighting against both while centrists were "compromising."

The left doesn't get anything done .. The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Headstart and aid to women and children, the New Deal, the end of the Vietnam war, the end of the Iraq war, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, today's call for universal healthcare, championed the American worker and made unions a legitimate partner in industrial relations, so that organized workers made large gains in wages and their jobs became more secure .. in fact, activism on a variety of levels was, and is, rooted in the American left. Just a few things the left got or is getting done.

I understand the nature of American politics I think much better than you do. Compromise sure, but do you compromise on freedom, civil liberties, and needless war? Is that your idea of good politics?

Your idea of compromise gave us Iraq, a faltering economy, and an incredible loss of American respect and power. Iraq is littered with the dead bodies of innocent people that centrists compromised on making them dead. .. But who cares about a few million dead Iraqis, Vietnamese, Iranians, or anyone else when political comfort is at stake. Much better to be comfortable than whine about dead people, eh?

Sorry brother, I do not subscribe to your notion of politics or your belief in how things get done.

You keep on compromising for comfort .. I'll keep on following my conscience.

 

[blackascoal]

Well I am tired of all of those things too. Maybe I am naïve, but I still have some hope that Obama will be less likely to kill people overseas, once he is President.

I agree with you, I too have that hope.

But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to protest against Obama falling into the same behavior that I criticized republicans for doing, nor does it mean that I'm not going to criticize him whenever I believe criticism is deserved.

Politicians are supposed to be controlled by "we the people" not the other way around .. something I don't believe the vast majority of Americans understand.

Frankly, I'm stunned to see democrats now in a position to have to argue the virtues of war, wiretapping, off-shore drilling, and the death penalty .. and how easily they goosestepped into the same character republicans assumed in their support of the neocon agenda.

They say things like "I don't have to agree on every issue." .. WHAT?

WAR .. WIRE-TAPPING .. OFF-SHORE DRILLING .. THE DEATH PENALTY .. I guess all that's too minor for any real consideration.

Amazing what a day makes.

 

[Cancel7]

I agree with you, I too have that hope.

But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to protest against Obama falling into the same behavior that I criticized republicans for doing, nor does it mean that I'm not going to criticize him whenever I believe criticism is deserved.

Politicians are supposed to be controlled by "we the people" not the other way around .. something I don't believe the vast majority of Americans understand.

Frankly, I'm stunned to see democrats now in a position to have to argue the virtues of war, wiretapping, off-shore drilling, and the death penalty .. and how easily they goosestepped into the same character republicans assumed in their support of the neocon agenda.

They say things like "I don't have to agree on every issue." .. WHAT?

WAR .. WIRE-TAPPING .. OFF-SHORE DRILLING .. THE DEATH PENALTY .. I guess all that's too minor for any real consideration.

Amazing what a day makes.

Yeah, well, as far as elected dems go, they do suck. They have collectively gotten themselves, as elected dems, into this position. I'm certainly not going to argue any of those things.

 

[blackascoal]

"The US is NOT leftist in way shape or form of the world. Leftists end up getting left out of the governing process in this country because they lack the foresight of incrementalism

This government isn't right wing because too few of the politically active liberal base won't come out to vote for a Democratic centrist. I don't even believe that the american people, at large, are inherently rightwing or conservative. Although, there are indeed elements of cultural conservatism in this country. The american people at large are liberal on economic and domestic issues.

This government remains rightwing and conservative because of intentional and concerted efforts to keep voter turnout low and to disenfranchise people from voting.

This is the only developed democracy on the planet that routinely has only about 50% of its eligible citizens vote in a presidential election. In an off year, congressional election, we're lucky to have 30% of americans vote.

Other democracies routinely have 80 or 90% of the electorate turn out to vote.

Why is that? Because this elections in this country have been structured and institutionalized to ensure low voter turnouts. And intentional impediments have been place in the way of voting, that ensure that working people, people of color, and disenfranchised people are disproportionately affected. You know who's not voting, for the most part? Working people, the poor, single Moms, and communities of color.

Do you know what kind of government we'd have if 90% of eligible americans voted? It might not be a Swedish style social democracy. But, I can guarantee you it would be a progressive government on balance, that was closer to the Swedish model than it is to the Dick Cheney/Jerry Falwell model.

The democracies that have high voter turnout usually have more choices available to voters than tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum. Those democracies excersise more real freedom of choice, more divergence of opinion.

The two party trap of American politics has become a circus of money, influence, and celebrity. It is surprising to me that 30% even show up.

Both major parties prevent the emergence of any real challenges to their mindfuck that we call democracy. But we don't have to look far for who to blame .. it's the American people themselves who continue to fall for an okey-doke they can put on TV.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

*Plugs proportional representation*

 

[blackascoal]

*Plugs proportional representation*

Brought to the Democratic Party by Jesse Jackson .. from the left.

 

[Socrtease]

Oh, and worst of all, on foreign policy, or so-called "national security" the American people are extreme right. That's why dems have such problems getting elected President. And it's been that way since Vietnam. That's why the idea that Obama can run on "I'm withdrawing from the War On Terror" is ludicrous.

But, unless he convinces me he would attack Iran (which I don't believe), or unless the current loon does attack Iran, and Obama backs it, I'm going to vote for him. and continue pressuring him from the bottom up. Also, many "progressive' (I prefer liberal) organizations are now very well funded. Kos and moveon are going to be funding left of center democrats in primaries going forward. That's how you change things! That's how the right changed things! But, you need a dem in the white house to take advantage of that change. There is real hope, and we do have the internet to thank for that.

So let's all hear it for Al Gore! Ah, I am a little stir crazy. Up early to do my bike ride and run, but it's pouring out.

And this whole post is EXACTLY what I am talking about. If you want to swing the pendulum back to the left a bit you have to do it incrementally. I HATE that Obama voted to reauthorize FISA, but had McCain actually voted on the Issue he would have voted the same way. Obama had to vote the way he did because if he didn't the right would have run on the idea that Obama loves the Terrorists. My problem is there are TOO many Dems and lefties talking about not voting for Obama because he either isn't going to pick Hillary as VP or he is not left enough on foreign policy, which as you have pointed out most americans are right on. Honestly I think that Kaine might have been the big deal breaker for LOTS of Dems, but I imagine the Obama campaign got LOTS of mail telling them it was a deal breaker, so they are going to go with Baye which does not thrill me but might be good to bring some of the bluedog dem McCain supporters back into the fold. And now I am rambling because my allegy meds are making me all balloon headed.

 

[Cancel7]

And this whole post is EXACTLY what I am talking about. If you want to swing the pendulum back to the left a bit you have to do it incrementally. I HATE that Obama voted to reauthorize FISA, but had McCain actually voted on the Issue he would have voted the same way. Obama had to vote the way he did because if he didn't the right would have run on the idea that Obama loves the Terrorists. My problem is there are TOO many Dems and lefties talking about not voting for Obama because he either isn't going to pick Hillary as VP or he is not left enough on foreign policy, which as you have pointed out most americans are right on. Honestly I think that Kaine might have been the big deal breaker for LOTS of Dems, but I imagine the Obama campaign got LOTS of mail telling them it was a deal breaker, so they are going to go with Baye which does not thrill me but might be good to bring some of the bluedog dem McCain supporters back into the fold. And now I am rambling because my allegy meds are making me all balloon headed.

Well, I agree, in large part. I certainly would never not vote for him because of Hillary, either way, though she certainly looks a lot better as a VP pick when you take a look at his rumored short- list.
But Bayh…yeah he’s not the deal breaker kaine would be, but what does that guy bring to the ticket? I guess if you want be the safest most boring candidate in the world, and pick your vp based on invisibility and the fact that he can’t hurt you…I think it would be a foolish pick though.

 

[blackascoal]

And this whole post is EXACTLY what I am talking about. If you want to swing the pendulum back to the left a bit you have to do it incrementally. I HATE that Obama voted to reauthorize FISA, but had McCain actually voted on the Issue he would have voted the same way. Obama had to vote the way he did because if he didn't the right would have run on the idea that Obama loves the Terrorists. My problem is there are TOO many Dems and lefties talking about not voting for Obama because he either isn't going to pick Hillary as VP or he is not left enough on foreign policy, which as you have pointed out most americans are right on. Honestly I think that Kaine might have been the big deal breaker for LOTS of Dems, but I imagine the Obama campaign got LOTS of mail telling them it was a deal breaker, so they are going to go with Baye which does not thrill me but might be good to bring some of the bluedog dem McCain supporters back into the fold. And now I am rambling because my allegy meds are making me all balloon headed.

But you illustrate the problem my brother. You're far too afraid of what the right might do, and you believe that Obama should operate within that same fear.

I believe Obama should operate on what is best for this country .. PERIOD.

You're worried about bringing blue dog McCain supporters back into the fold at the expense of losing the support of those who brought Obama here.

None of that makes any sense to me in an environment where republican party identification is shrinking, the electorate is clamoring for change, and all the dynamics are in favor of the democrats.

Republicans don't operate in fear of democrats.

Obama has to actually WIN this election, not expect it to be handed to him. He is going to have to articulate policies that voters can believe in. He is going to have to find the courage to take a stand or else he does not deserve to be POTUS.

Appeasement we can believe in .. that ain't working.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And this whole post is EXACTLY what I am talking about. If you want to swing the pendulum back to the left a bit you have to do it incrementally. I HATE that Obama voted to reauthorize FISA, but had McCain actually voted on the Issue he would have voted the same way. Obama had to vote the way he did because if he didn't the right would have run on the idea that Obama loves the Terrorists. My problem is there are TOO many Dems and lefties talking about not voting for Obama because he either isn't going to pick Hillary as VP or he is not left enough on foreign policy, which as you have pointed out most americans are right on. Honestly I think that Kaine might have been the big deal breaker for LOTS of Dems, but I imagine the Obama campaign got LOTS of mail telling them it was a deal breaker, so they are going to go with Baye which does not thrill me but might be good to bring some of the bluedog dem McCain supporters back into the fold. And now I am rambling because my allegy meds are making me all balloon headed.

You don't seem to understand how the left works, Soc.

When we send out a psudo-republican like Humphrey, we lose in a landslide. When we send out a real liberal like FDR, that's when change happens.

 

[Cancel7]

Everybody’s got good points on this thread, in my opinion. Unless Top posted.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Everybody’s got good points on this thread, in my opinion. Unless Top posted.

suck up

 

[Cypress]

The democracies that have high voter turnout usually have more choices available to voters than tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum. Those democracies excersise more real freedom of choice, more divergence of opinion.

The two party trap of American politics has become a circus of money, influence, and celebrity. It is surprising to me that 30% even show up.

Both major parties prevent the emergence of any real challenges to their mindfuck that we call democracy. But we don't have to look far for who to blame .. it's the American people themselves who continue to fall for an okey-doke they can put on TV.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson

I don't think american people, on balance, are any dumber than swedish people or italian people.

I think the 30 to 50% that show up to vote can, and have, made some horrofic choices. Look at all the two time Bush voters on this board.

BAC, you know which demographic is disproportionately represented in that 30 to 50% that show up to vote? White, middle class, affluent, and center-right voters.

Can you imagine what this government would look like if the other 50% showed up to vote? The single moms, the poor, and the other disenfranchised communities?

Look, I don't think its an accident that our system is structurally and institutionally set up to depress voter turnout. Its not exactly a well guarded secret why other democracies have 80 to 90% voter turnout.

And the structural roadblocks to increased voter turnout are augmented by active and insidious efforts to disenfranchise the working poor and people of color who DO show up to vote. This isn't a well guarded secret either. Voter caging, provisional ballots. Christ, everytime you hear a republican sqawk about Voter ID laws, its all code to depress voter turnout in communities that aren't likely to vote for rightwing ideologies. In spite of years of studies, there's virutally no evidence that voters are showing up to polls to cast fradulent ballots. Why do you think the rightwing wants Voter ID laws for people who go to the polls, but strangely enough, they don't seem concerned about mail-in ballots which are cast predominatly by affluent whites?

 

[Cypress]

I think that you need to stop conflating pacifism with the belief that occupying afghanistan is accomplishing jack shit.

I disagree that America as a whole is centrist. What's funny is, on a whole, they seem to be what you despise the most, according to polling over the years. Left, and I mean LEFT, of any elected Dem, on economic policy, and slightly right of center on social policy. though, on gays they have moved center, recently.

You are also completely disregarding the fact that the extreme right moved this government hard right by refusing to compromise, by calling political compromise "date rape". You don't get anywhere by allowing the extreme right reign for years, and then going centrist in response, until they take over again, even further right. That has been the pattern, and look where it got us?

Personally, I think that both Obama and FDR had it right. Stop whining. You want him to do something? Make him do it. That means, political activism and building loud grass roots movements.

Yeah, that's a great point. The conflation of the left with "pacifism" , "communism", socialism, and collectivism is always a classic.

No offense, Soc. I know where your coming from.

And I like the comment about Obama and FDR. FDR was rich white guy, who was pressured into doing something for this country's working class. He wasn't some kind of moralistic saint, who just woke up one day and decided to make the welfare of america's working class his life's goal. It was as much political expedience, as it was any deep seated commitment to moral and ethical policies that alleviated suffering.

Obama is going to have to be pressured, pummled, and mocked into making any sort of transformative changes.

 

[blackascoal]

I don't think american people, on balance, are any dumber than swedish people or italian people.

I think the 30 to 50% that show up to vote can, and have, made some horrofic choices. Look at all the two time Bush voters on this board.

BAC, you know which demographic is disproportionately represented in that 30 to 50% that show up to vote? White, middle class, affluent, and center-right voters.

Can you imagine what this government would look like if the other 50% showed up to vote? The single moms, the poor, and the other disenfranchised communities?

Look, I don't think its an accident that our system is structurally and institutionally set up to depress voter turnout. Its not exactly a well guarded secret why other democracies have 80 to 90% voter turnout.

And the structural roadblocks to increased voter turnout are augmented by active and insidious efforts to disenfranchise the working poor and people of color who DO show up to vote. This isn't a well guarded secret either. Voter caging, provisional ballots. Christ, everytime you hear a republican sqawk about Voter ID laws, its all code to depress voter turnout in communities that aren't likely to vote for rightwing ideologies. In spite of years of studies, there's virutally no evidence that voters are showing up to polls to cast fradulent ballots. Why do you think the rightwing wants Voter ID laws for people who go to the polls, but strangely enough, they don't seem concerned about mail-in ballots which are cast predominatly by affluent whites?

I couldn't agree with you more .. however, they did an in-your-face theft of both the 2000 and 2004 elections right in front of all Americans.

They simply strong-armed the 2000 election and stole the 2004 election through the fraud of electronic voting in a form that other countries won't allow .. because they know it's a a fraud. How did Americans get dumb enough to allow that?

I contend that the problem lies in the two-party trap we find ourselves in.

Voter-Id laws are designed to do exactly as you say .. disenfranchise voters .. so how is it that they've become law? .. The answer is compromise. Politicians who know better compromised with evil for political expediency.

We need less compromising politicians, especially democrats .. not more of them.

 

[blackascoal]

Yeah, that's a great point. The conflation of the left with "pacifism" , "communism", socialism, and collectivism is always a classic.

No offense, Soc. I know where your coming from.

And I like the comment about Obama and FDR. FDR was rich white guy, who was pressured into doing something for this country's working class. He wasn't some kind of moralistic saint, who just woke up one day and decided to make the welfare of america's working class his life's goal. It was as much political expedience, as it was any deep seated commitment to moral and ethical policies that alleviated suffering.

Obama is going to have to be pressured, pummled, and mocked into making any sort of transformative changes.

Quote of the Year.