Post by FunkySwerve on Nov 10, 2011 21:46:48 GMT
If you thought that the country was headed for rocky shoals, would you not advocate the defeat of the misguided leadership so that the course could be righted.
That's the thing: they KNOW the proposals Obama is advancing work, and have in fact advocated them themselves in the past. They aren't blocking his proposals because they think they won't work, but because they know they WILL work.
Perhaps you misconstrued my tone - I said that it was the same ... south of 15%. Not unusual as it has been ~20% or less since the economy started south. Sometimes I feel like we are arguing just for the sake of it.
Actually, what you said looked very much like an attempt to tar the low approval ratings of Congress as a result of a radical liberal agenda, which the facts simply don't support.
Might as well say "pie in the sky" has 70% approval. The ugly reality is what is driving down its popularity. Would you like me to quote Bill Ayers as an authority on Democratic views? Death Panels? Honestly, views of extremist don't interest me - not from either extreme.
No, you don't understand. What the polling tells us is that Republicans managed to scare Americans about the heallthcare bill by deceiving people about it - claiming it institutionalized death panels, saying it cut Medicare, and
so on. When you look at the polling of individual ideas that make up Obamacare, it polls FAR higher, because those individual notions haven't been besmirched by republican lies. See, for example:
voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/is_health-care_reform_popular.html
The particular bill is unpopular because of republican advertising - its actual components are quite popular. So you see, whether or not the views of 'extremists' interest you, they have managed to skew the polling.
To suggest that the health care plan was Romney's totally disregards that the state legislature was so overwhelmingly Dem that it could barely be called bipartisan.
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. The plan WAS Romney's, FAR more than Obamacare is Obama's. He proposed it, and he signed it, though the democrats in the house and senate did make some modifications. Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia:
"In November 2004, political leaders began advocating for major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured."
"In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers."
The plan is fundamentally his, and the individual mandate is fundamentally a republican approach to healthcare, one they'd advocated many times in previous years. He's also referred to it as one his signature acheivements, saying he never expected to have to run away from it.
On another note, how would YOU deal with the case of the 30-year-old guy with no insurance who gets cancer?
As far as the plans "moderation," growing government is a burdensome slippery slope - it produces inn efficiently and provides debt as an added "feature."
EVERY CHANGE is a 'slippery slope'. Slippery slope arguments are incredibly weak, as they can be used for anything, and are based on a hypothetical future reality - not actual reality. Furthermore, the notion that goverment is at the proper size, or is already too big, is simply not based in fact. We are facing increasing competition globally as a result of globalization, and government needs to take a more, not less, active role, in many different areas. This notion is also in direct conflict with your holding up Germany as a model - their goverment is very interventionist when it comes to stimulating industry - and they don't do it by stripping regulations and cutting taxes.
As far as cronyism, the union health care sweetheart deal is the tip of the iceberg - the crooked crap going on is so obvious that i really didn't think it needed further examples: "Nearly 80 percent of the people who raised more than $500,000 for the Obama campaign wound up in “key administration posts,” according to an investigation by iWatch News, a website devoted to investigative journalism launched two months ago by the Center for Public Integrity. [Politico]."
I find it curious that you call out the Obama administration for this, when there are much starker examples under Bush. No-bid contracts for the VP's company, the firing of Democratic US Attoryneys purely because of party affiliation, lying to get us to go to war, outing of spies for political payback, cooking the budget books - I could go on for quite some time. By comparison, Obama's administration is junior varsity, at best. And yet you accuse HIM of Chicago politics? Seriously?
To claim that conservatives are trying to drag the country down to further their ideology is ridiculous. As much as I abhor liberal viewpoints I wouldn't suggest that about them. This is the kind of thinking that cued my Sun Tzu comment - totally appropriate.
Normally I'd agree, but, if you checked the link, you'll see that they themselves have admitted as much, on multiple occasions - Mitch McConnell most famously. Furthermore, nothing else explains their historical levels of obstructionism to ideas formerly their own. They are quite clearly tanking the economy by refusing to provide stimulus, and they know it. They don't actually believe the party line about cutting taxes to stimulate growth - no intelligent person aware of the facts does, since industries are sitting on record levels of cash right now and not creating jobs. Giving them more to sit on will not accomplish anything. Expect to see a 180 on this if the republicans DO win the white house. It's disgusting, and unpatriotic in the extreme.
"Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself,
you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know
yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will
also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle." -Sun Tzu as translated by Lionel Giles
That's a nice quote from one of my favorite books, but I don't see what bearing knowing your opponent has on deliberately undermining your own country for the good of your party. At some point even the justification that their party will be better for the country - setting aside copious amounts of evidence to the contrary over the last decde - falls flat, as they are inflicting grievous damage to our country's economy.
Can you really, with a straight face, suggest that the mainstream media doesn't have a liberal bias? Most moderates I know are convinced and most liberals I debate with over a beer or two concede the point. Hell, even Andy Rooney recognized Media Liberalism.
I already did. And, unlike you, I provided actual examples, instead of fallacious appeals to authority. It's a concept that's been very successfully foisted on the American populace, but it has as much truth to it as the death panels.
If the mainstream media outlets were so "balanced" they would have a Majority of the viewers. They don't. They aren't.
That's a strong, if completely unsupported contention. Where's your evidence for this? Everything I've seen indicates that viewers care about flashy news pieces, action, breaking news, and boobage, not necessarily in that order. They also like the warm and fuzzy feeling they get from having their world view confirmed to them whenever they flip on the news. If you ACTUALLY prefer reality, and like to avoid bias, you should read from sources that challenge your viewpoints, instead of confirming them.
All of those things viewers actually prefer are why Fox sports pageant-winners instead of journalists, and have them pander to the audience by pretending not to understand words of more than two syllables. It's why all of their famous personalities are not ACTUALLY newscasters, but entertainers, according to them:
www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-
It's why you see coverage of the McRib, and not the debunking of climategate. If, as you claim, the reason viewers flocked to Fox was its accurate reporting of news, Fox viewers would not be the most consistently misinformed:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/fox-news-viewers-are-the-_n_798146.html
Any of those misinformed opinions look familiar to you? The paucity of your new sources is showing. By contrast, I read a variety of news sources, specifically BECAUSE of that Sun Tzu tenet - know your enemy better than yourself. I read the Wall Street Journal - even some of the vomitous editorial section, which is rapidly sliding into the gutter along with Fox. I read the Economist, which is fiscally conservative (but usually lacking the more outlandish Fox spins). I used to watch Fox News, though I often wound up bawling at some of the spin - I can't usually stomach it anymore, though I still see the more outrageous bits on Daily Show or other networks.
As an experiment, I suggest you, in adherence to that Sun Tzu tenet you just cited, try watching MSNBC for a year. If you can't commit to that, I'd recommend just the Rachel Maddow show - she is brilliant, and only rarely lets her bias get the better of her. You'll find a lot of contexual facts in stories than Fox often 'forgets' to Report before their viewers Decide.
By contrast, watch CSPAN for a few minutes. Much of the time, there is definitionally no bias in reporting, since there is no reporting to speak of - it's just video of the goings on on the Hill. If lack of bias was REALLY the primary selection criteria, they would be killing all the other networks in ratings. They aren't, obviously, because viewers DO value other things - I can't stand watching that any more than I can Fox these days. Concise summaries of the news, for example, has got to be way up there, along with relatable, feel-good stories. This is why, for example, the Rachel Maddow show has a 'Coolest New Thing in the World Today' at the end - purely fluff in terms of informational content, but feel good. I suspect people watch Fox for that feel good motivation more than many others - people LIKE having their world-view confirmed to them - see, by way of example, this piece on confirmation bias on Wikipedia.
It's so amusing and at the same time a tad disgusting how liberals seem to think the vast majority of the electorate are just a bunch of ignorant hicks.
Citation? Or are you just putting words in my mouth to win an argument? Try to stay factual, please.
Look at how they mis-characterize the Tea Party activists, yet give the 99% folks a complete pass though the former is completely law abiding and the latter has a active lawless / anarchist component.
You'll have to be a lot more specific. Do you mean how they point out that the Tea Party is just an astroturf movement funded by billionaires to advance pro-billionaire fiscal policy, or something else? Also, I've seen some coverage that's quite critical of the violence by the 99%, despite what a small minority of them engage in it. It sounds like you're advancing another fact-free right wing narrative, to me. You make the accusation, but you provide utterly no proof of it. The first search I did turned up this, which talks about the violence, and shows a video of it:
thedailywh.at/2011/11/03/occupy-oakland-news-update-of-the-day/#more-50924
I saw coverage of the same on MSNBC and CNN, so I'm not sure who you think is getting or giving a pass. I'm also not sure why you're critical of the 99%, since they're espousing views that largely cohere with things you agreed to earlier in the thread. I know the right wing is intent on tarring them, because they might act as a counter to some of the Tea Party's extremism, but if you want to convince me of disparate treatment you're going to have to show it to me. I'm pretty sensitive to bias, as I look for it actively on both sides of the isle, and a lot of the reporting on the 99 percent I've seen coheres with a slight corporatist slant. Here in Tucson, for example, the stories often arise in a slightly negative context, dealing with the normal goings-on that the protesters are interfering with - most recently, the Tour de Tucson bike race. Hell, I even agree that we shouldn't interfere with that race, lest they take their money elsewhere, despite supporting the protester's goals, but the point is the light the story is presented in, which is negative.
The mindset seems to be, "If you dint agree with us, you must be a mindless minion of the right, spewing talking points."
Well, no, actually. But when you DO advance fact-free talking points like the failed stimulus, and it's pointed out to you, and you respond not with facts but ad hominem attacks like this one, it doesn't do your argument much credit. Spend less time on your opponent's mindset and more on the facts. When you do, you'll see that they simply don't support many of the positions you're advocating, including the existence of liberal media bias.
Patronizing and oddly ignorant coming from folks who claim to be educated.
You do realize, I hope, that in the same breath that you launch an ad hominem attack on 'liberal elitism' - yet another republican farce designed to disguise the extent to which their own policies favor the wealthy elite, by the way - by saying they call people stupid - you imply that they themselves are stupid. If calling people stupid is bad, why are you doing it? Ask yourself why you're advancing this narrative at all. In point of fact, I have gone to pains in this thread to point out that my opponents are NOT stupid, and even compared one to Einstein. And yet here you are implying that liberals are stupid in the same breath you're calling them out for calling people stupid. Delightfully amusing, but not terribly productive.
If we assume a normal distribution lets use a bell curve as an example www.dennis-greenwood.co.uk/restoration/glossary.html You and I are probably on the high side of the bell near the middle (shoulder). Each of us has a perspective based on our "normal". Mine has some right bias(my earlier comment about Clinton's reelection -my awakening to where i fall out), yet most on the right would see me the way they seem to see Huntsman. I think you would probably be on the opposite shoulder moderate left. The nut-jobs and extremists are the fringe operators and can be found on the lip of the bell. I have no idea where a pragmatist falls - think they are like the tooth fairy. I will be the first to declare that many of the folks on Fox News are Right (not the correct kind). Hannity makes my hair stand on end, can't stand him. Not a rush fan either. As far as your asertion that the mainstream media is right on top at the Argent of the bell, here is how the mainstream media see themselves, in their own words: www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp
Aha! A concrete example. I was starting to lose hope. Taking a look at that, two problems stand out right away. First of all, they're talking about the personal opinions of newscasters, not biased reporting swayed by those opinions. It IS a fact that the majority of newscasters are more liberal than conservative. This is because, as I've pointed out, the conservative ideology in this country is not based on fact, and newscasters have more exposure to fact than most. This is not a problem, however, so long as their bias doesn't extend into their coverage. From what I've seen, the most common effect of their personal preference is that they overcompensate, failing to call out conservatives on outright lies or severe misrepresentations, for fear of being accused of bias.
Second of all, on a sheet titled 'Admissions of Liberal Bias', we only have to go down 2 examples to find not an admission, but an accusation - someone talking about someone ELSE's bias. Likewise, a lot of those quotes are discussing not liberal bias, but bias of some other kind - secularism, for example (yet another field where exposure to fact correlates, by the way), or something other than bias entirely. That webpage is at best misleading. The best charge I can fashion is that they media is pro-fact, and thus anti-republican, but at that point you've basically surrendered the field, and charged reality with a liberal bias. That would sound a bit more ridiculous if not for the existence of Conservapedia.
Not sure what your Cain comment has to do with what i was talking about. Perhaps it was in support of your assessment of the current REP candidates - no argument here, only one that I was mildly interested in was Huntsman. I'm convinced that he (Cain) is getting the Axe from the right. He's weak on foreign policy, not electable. Frankly, I'm not all excited by any of the candidates. Marco Rubio (R-FL) would be my choice, but hell, he's younger than I am, and not running.
I was pointing out how reflexive and unthinking charges of liberal media bias often are, but pointing to an example where such a charge was levied in the face of all common sense.
I guess we haven't the basis to discuss this, since we don't share the same perception of reality. Have you heard Nancy Pelosi speak?
We don't need to share a perception. We can simply look at objective fact. The democrats, in their perfectly normal opposition to Bush, did not repeatedly vote down their own policies in an effort to tank him - instead, they sometimes even went against them, swept along after 9/11 into signing the PATRIOT act. Republicans under Obama, by contrast, have consistently voted 'no' to everything placed before them, including a huge number of policies they have openly supported in the past, with the debt ceiling increases being the most obvious example. There's really no getting around the point that what the republicans are doing at present has taken obstructionism to a whole new level.
I'm not sure how to make my perspective clearer. I do not agree with the concept of either taxing or increasing debt to pump cash into the economy. It didn't work when Bush did it, It hasn't worked under Obama.
It didn't work under Bush because Bush didn't do it - his flagrant spending was done overseas, and he LOWERED taxes, resulting in 60% of the present deficit. And debt spending DID work under Obama, as I've already pointed out, citing facts - the CBO report and the FactCheck page. If you want to contest the point, you'll need some facts of your own. I'll save you some time - you won't find any, because that talking point is not based on them.
The definition of insanity is to do something over and over again, each time expecting a different result. It couldn't be clearer. The unemployment rate remains steady an just shy of 10%. Ineffective. Totally.
You keep saying 10%, but it's actually at 9%, and we've seen 25 straight months of job growth in this country under Obama, as compared to deepening losses under Bush. Further, citing unemployment percentiles is deceptive, as explained by the FactCheck page you clearly didn't read, because it doesn't reflect just job growth - it doesn't include discouraged people who stop looking for work. When they economy grows, as it has, and they start looking again, unemployment can go UP even during job growth.
When Obama and the dem majority were just jamming legislation through in the first two years? Come on! If there was a branch involved, it was being applied by the Dems (no pun intended) and without the benefit of lubrication - likely from a locust tree or a rose bush.
Please cite facts, not colorful metaphors. If you can find any. Again, best of luck.
As far as the French go, they are the major importer of Libyan oil and were acting in their self-interest - noble?
What has that got to do with republican hypocrisy over Obama's success in Libya?
Slavery? Really?
Yes, really. None of what followed this cuteness did anything to contest the point I was making about how long-lived institutional inequality can be.
*Snip*
If you can't see that many Americans will have heartburn over unfair application of the law, time will tell. "Miasma of republican disinformation", he he, really. Here we go again, Facts are Facts. Characterizing Facts as "misinformation" IS misinformation.
If you can't see that many Americans will have heartburn over unfair application of the law, time will tell. "Miasma of republican disinformation", he he, really. Here we go again, Facts are Facts. Characterizing Facts as "misinformation" IS misinformation.
Indeed is is. Characterizing the death panel misinformation as misiniformation, is fact. Aren't words fun? Again, please stick to factual examples, and don't waste both our time with word games. If you think that republicans didn't play up the notion that old people would get euthanized before their time as a result of Obamacare, I'm happy to provide links, but I find it hard to believe you missed it. Or is it that you actually believe that? You'll have to clarify.
Interesting comparison, violence and ownership of instruments of violence to seeking employment. sigh. There is no right or freedom guaranteed in the constitution protected by involuntary membership to a union. Arguably, mandatory membership is an impingement on Liberty. Since you brought it up, I agree with the constraint on the right to bear arms in environments where that right would necessarily jeopardize the rights of others - in other words, if you are on your 1500 acre ranch in MT with your Barret Arms .50cal rifle, using it lawfully, have at it. If you are in downtown phoenix toting a .38cal revolver - why? Snake protection? Buy some CS spray. Personally, I have had my fill of weapons and violence. Once there is a constitutional amendment that requires union membership for employment, I will concede - it will be a cold day in hell.
Begging your pardon, but you seem to be suffering from the misconception that all our rights are explicit in the constitution. They aren't. It's a comparatively tiny 200 year old document. I'll be happy to elaborate at length if you want a legal lecture, but it's not really complex. To stave off the obvious objection, I'll point out at the outset that I'm not just talking about EBIL judicial 'activism' like Roe v. Wade, but a much broader spectrum. The first example that comes to mind was mentioned, I think, earlier in this thread - the right to emergency medical health care. Not in the Constitution, but a right nontheless, by act of Congress. Likewise, you have a bevvy of rights under common-law, from the right to be free from pain and suffering inflicted deliberately (which tort law encompasses) or negligently (negligence law). The notion that if it ain't in the Constitution, it ain't a right, is yet another fact-free conservative narrative advanced by pro-lifers, among others. You have a right to contract without duress, under contract law, and so on and so forth. Literally hundreds of thousands of rights, each defining how individual rights play out in a society. You might want to reread my original point in that light, since you seem to have missed the point. EVERY SINGLE RIGHT you have is both positive and negative in character. Your having a right to emergency medical care denies hostpitals the right to turn you away. Your objection, resting on the notion that unions only restrict freedom, is baseless. By surrendering some rights, they achieve others. To go back to my original example, which I used NOT because it involved violence, but because of the famous quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes ("The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.") highlighting the competitive nature of individual rights in a society, by yielding the right to work union-free, your spouse gets myriad benefits - a living wage, good working hours, a safer workplace, and more. No, she wasn't consulted personally on that, but neither was any of us involved in the original deal limiting our right to swing our fists. Society couldn't function if each member had to be consulted on each right beforehand - we would have 300 million different Americas.
Sacrifice is usually voluntary, unless you are into picking volunteers too - a mis-characterization of the relationship. Artificially low labor rates? What? In a free market Labor rates are where the wages and benefits workers are willing to work for meet the demand for labor. Unions create artificially high labor rates through limited extortion. "Don't cross our line, scab!" "If you want to work here you got to pony up to the local." I'm not pulling this stuff from Hollywood, my dad dealt with this crap in NY in the 60s and 70s. We moved, dad was never happier than when he went to work for Nissan in TN, well paid, nice 401k, worked for a company that was and is successful and union free.
I covered the point about voluntary sacrifice just above. As for artificially low labor rates actually being artificially high under unions, you are incorrect. Read the Smith quote again. Without unions, industry depresses wages by means of greater bargaining power. Only with unions are wages brought up to something resembling fair market value. Again, this is coming from the father of the market himself.
Completely incorrect, huh? I will buy incomplete, but not incorrect. Look, this isn't rocket science, its basic human nature. We are naturally greedy and risk adverse. On the supply side, reduced uncertainty would WOULD stimulate investment, be it in production or R&D (innovation). You might be surprised that I am for suspending the tax cuts that were recently extended. As it is now, they are hovering over the head of industry - better to treat them like a well adhered band aid ... "riiiipppp"
Republicans have been talking up regulatory uncertainty under Obama, but actual business shutting their doors cite lack of demand - as with the Whirlpool example I cited. Gripes about uncertainty are a tactic they're using to accelerate the race to the bottom, mentioned in my last post. Businesses don't give a hoot about which way the Bush tax cuts go, so far as their business, as opposed to their personal finances go, because it will have no impact on their ability to invest. Again, they are already sitting on record amounts of money.
On the demand side, reducing fuel costs would have a far reaching impact on disposable income for most consumers. Driving fuel prices up as is the current administrations energy plan for economic recovery places burden on the consumer at every turn, transportation, shelter, food, clothing - any and everything consumed costs more.
This is more utter right-wing nonsense. Obama faced heavy criticism from the left for being as willing as he was to grant drilling permits in the wake of the worst drilling disaster in history, despite the fact that very little has changed with regards to blowout prevention.
If you're going to espouse nonsense like this, please cite it, or at a minimum provide concrete examples I can look up myself. In fact, the opposite is true. Republicans are bent on keeping gas prices high in order to tank the economy. Sounds crazy, right? In truth, it's probably at least partly owning to campaign contributions from big oil, and we don't have a crystal ball to peer into their heads, but given that their stated #1 goal is the defeat of Obama, it's not really much of a stretch. Oil speculation is seen as the single largest factor driving gas prices. Here, by way of example, is a CNN Money article talking about the problem:
money.cnn.com/2011/10/13/news/economy/gasoline_cost_speculation/index.htm
Oil industry executives themselves confirm that the rising prices are NOT in response to changes in supply. Here's a recent report dealing with the issue:
www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/SpeculationReportOctober13.pdf
The Obama adminstration is taking steps to crimp down on this speculation, specifically to easy energy prices - something they have EVERY incentive to do, to help the economy grow and improve his chances of reelection. See, for example, this report, explaining how they're tackling the illegal speculation (though that still leaves the problem caused by all the legal speculation):
www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73584
He also tapped the emergency reserves - admist rampant republican criticism, naturally - in order to tamp down on this speculation:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/obama-administration-oil-reserve-tap_n_883572.html
See, especially:
"In this case, Obama's move appeared to convince traders that his administration is intent on intervening in the markets and snuffing out speculative zeal in order to confront the soaring price of gasoline."
Securities analyst firms agree about the problem:
www.marketwatch.com/story/gas-could-fall-to-2-if-congress-acts-analysts-say
More recently, Obama supported the democratic plan to tamp down on speculation as well, which drew heavy fire from the right:
www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66235.html
What have republicans done on this, the largest cause of gas price inflation? They've sworn to protect those responsible:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXJR7eZ_jQ
So yeah, sing me another song, or post some competing facts, please.
If you live in a metropolitan area, perhaps the impact is not great. If on the other hand, you commute 60 miles each way to work and are living in middle America on a wage that wouldn't get you a studio apt in NYC for your family of five, it has a significant impact. It is going to take some time for the housing glut to clear. Home construction is another great demand driver - uncertainty impacts this endeavor as well - whether it be uncertainty about future demand or a buyers uncertainty about future ability to deduct interest, or even future employment.
You're right that the housing crises is at the base of the economic problems of this country. You're wrong that uncertainty has much to do with why. Americans had a huge percentage of their wealth in their homes, the value of which took a massive hit. The result was that the wealth of those selfsame Americans also took a massive hit, resulting in a decreased capacity to buy - a massive drop in, you guessed it, demand.
As far as your suggestion that taking money from industry and growing government will get us out of this mess... history doesn't have an example to support this, It didn't work for FDR - took WWII to fix us.
I'm always amused by this claim. Yes, it took even more massive government spending that FDR was able to manage politically in order to get us out of the recession. Or were you under the impression that the war fairy paid for all of that?
In the short term, we would be wise to increase energy availability and simultaneously fund R&D on alternative fuel sources. The current energy plan is necessarily negatively impacting economic recovery. I agree that infrastructure spending would be very appropriate. There are a lot of examples of how businesses in times of economic contraction, invest heavily in innovation and infrastructure to great eventual benefit (CISCO in the early 90s). Frankly I don't trust the current administration to apply this spending fairly or accurately.
It's amazing the extent to which we can agree on policy, given our differing perspectives.
I caught a Huntsman comment somewhere in your post. He is the most palatable of the ugly ducklings currently presented. Unfortunately, he is too direct and honest about his moderate views to ever attract the far right bible belt folks. Too bad really. If Obama is re-elected, conservatives will have no one to blame but themselves. I guess they could get a poser to come off as a moderate and then come full on Right wing anti abortion nut... too bad there aren't many conservatives in Chicago.
I agree with all but the last sentence, though it's certainly the case that conservatives know they can't tell the truth to the American public about their policy goals and get elected. One of them accidentally admitted as much recently, albeit implicitly, in his call for the cadidates to tone it down a notch:
news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/pat-robertson-republican-candidates-extremism-down-notch-ya-194714069.html
I will give you the last word - its obvious that we won't agree on much, so I'm going back to gaming, he he
I'm not so sure. We seem to agree on policy outcomes, which puzzles me no end, since most of your baseline opinions seem based on conservative talking points based on desire to win elections rather than fact. I really don't know what to make of it.
Funky