"No Labels" website

That's good!!! Anything construed as group think today really means dumb think, unable to think individually, lacking coherent thought in terms of actual constructive thought, and what not. Basically, the founders would be laughing their asses between the tears of horror, and then quickly boarding a clipper and sailing off to start all over again.

Actually, I think that description really describes ideologues better. I've always said that being married to an ideology keeps an individual boxed in and prohibits thinking out of the box.
When I go though posts on these boards, I find there are times that I keep on reading the same train of thought and at times word-for-word posts by different individuals all belonging to the same ideology.
Then there's Washington, it's rare when an elected official doesn't vote the party line. And when they do, they get chastised by their party. If they do it too much, their party finds someone to run against them. Heaven forbid individual thought and representing the constituents.!
Voting the party line has little-to-nothing to do with ideology....It has to do with being a good little party man stooge.

There's a difference.

Thanks, that's a point worth considering.
 
The Founders didn't name the country the United Nothings of No Labels.

Just sayin'.

That's good!!! Anything construed as group think today really means dumb think, unable to think individually, lacking coherent thought in terms of actual constructive thought, and what not. Basically, the founders would be laughing their asses between the tears of horror, and then quickly boarding a clipper and sailing off to start all over again.

Actually, I think that description really describes ideologues better. I've always said that being married to an ideology keeps an individual boxed in and prohibits thinking out of the box.
When I go though posts on these boards, I find there are times that I keep on reading the same train of thought and at times word-for-word posts by different individuals all belonging to the same ideology.
Then there's Washington, it's rare when an elected official doesn't vote the party line. And when they do, they get chastised by their party. If they do it too much, their party finds someone to run against them. Heaven forbid individual thought and representing the constituents.!

You've got some good points. Ideologues, individualists, those were our founders, and they all had their individual thoughts on how our fledgling country should proceed. They had fierce yelling battles amongst themselves and within correspondence leading up to the continental congress. I just don't see any of our current leaders in that realm.
 
You also have to realize that our founders were way beyond in thinking terms and capacity compared to our current carnival members.



The Founders didn't name the country the United Nothings of No Labels.

Just sayin'.

Nor did they name the country conservativeusa.org. Duh... Jes sayin...


I don't recall claiming that they did.

But to think that the foundation of the U.S. is an Non Labeled ideologically free effort is inane. And quite consistent with your POV.
 
No, the concept is Democrats trying to rebrand themselves. Their ideology has not changed one whit.

I'm finding that even the most, er, vitriolic blogsites from both the left and the right are calling for an end to this nonsense. I do realize, however, that some people simply aren't happy unless they're stirring up trouble by trying to make others miserable.

That is correct, both Limbaugh and Olbermann and other left and right mouth-pieces have bashed the concept of No Labels.
"While Limbaugh was busy arguing that No Labels is just a shadow organization for progressives, on the left, the netroots were describing us as just the opposite—a shadow organization of Republicans. Huffington Post contributor Robert David Steele went the DINO-hunting "corporatist" route sometimes directed at No Labels allies, like centrist Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh and Joe Manchin, describing how “No Labels ‘Non-Party’ Equals ‘Four More Years’ for Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, Grand Theft USA”. Daily Kos offered a series of similar takes.

Keith Olbermann named No Labels one of the "worst persons in the world" last night (a badge of honor he gave to me earlier this year). He called us “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and “a bunch of fraudulent conservative Democrats pretending to be moderates and a bunch of fraudulent Republicans pretending to be independents.” Again, there’s the impulse to divide and deny the legitimacy of anyone who doesn’t conform to a hyper-partisan view of politics.

Likewise, Ed Schultz did a segment attacking No Labels as "fence riders.” When he brought Kiki McLean on, she explained No Labels’ belief that “if we start the day by calling each other liars, if we start the day by calling each other baby killers, murderers, racists, we don't get to the topic of substance.” Schultz called on liberal commentator Lionel Media to rebut, saying, “Right now this a rancorous [time], this is an uncivil world that we live in…if I went to John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi and said, now, listen, I want you two to find one we agree on that we can start. They'd say, ‘Nothing.’ OK. There we go.”

My War With Rush Limbaugh, by John Avlon - The Daily Beast

Now I consider that good. What ringing endorsements of No Labels! :clap2:
 
The Founders didn't name the country the United Nothings of No Labels.

Just sayin'.

Nor did they name the country conservativeusa.org. Duh... Jes sayin...


I don't recall claiming that they did.

But to think that the foundation of the U.S. is an Non Labeled ideologically free effort is inane. And quite consistent with your POV.

And the No Labels website can hardly be considered biased already, when it's only been up a month. Look, Boebitch, if you don't like the concept of the site, tough shit. Just go away and find another thread where you can spead your special brand of vicious grousing. It must suck to wake up every day and be you.
 
That's good!!! Anything construed as group think today really means dumb think, unable to think individually, lacking coherent thought in terms of actual constructive thought, and what not. Basically, the founders would be laughing their asses between the tears of horror, and then quickly boarding a clipper and sailing off to start all over again.

Actually, I think that description really describes ideologues better. I've always said that being married to an ideology keeps an individual boxed in and prohibits thinking out of the box.
When I go though posts on these boards, I find there are times that I keep on reading the same train of thought and at times word-for-word posts by different individuals all belonging to the same ideology.
Then there's Washington, it's rare when an elected official doesn't vote the party line. And when they do, they get chastised by their party. If they do it too much, their party finds someone to run against them. Heaven forbid individual thought and representing the constituents.!

You've got some good points. Ideologues, individualists, those were our founders, and they all had their individual thoughts on how our fledgling country should proceed. They had fierce yelling battles amongst themselves and within correspondence leading up to the continental congress. I just don't see any of our current leaders in that realm.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are ideologues...This is why you'll sometimes find them voting on the same side of an issue (albeit sometimes for different reasons) and drawing the ire of toady hacks from their respective parties.
 
No, the concept is Democrats trying to rebrand themselves. Their ideology has not changed one whit.

I'm finding that even the most, er, vitriolic blogsites from both the left and the right are calling for an end to this nonsense. I do realize, however, that some people simply aren't happy unless they're stirring up trouble by trying to make others miserable.

That is correct, both Limbaugh and Olbermann and other left and right mouth-pieces have bashed the concept of No Labels.
"While Limbaugh was busy arguing that No Labels is just a shadow organization for progressives, on the left, the netroots were describing us as just the opposite—a shadow organization of Republicans. Huffington Post contributor Robert David Steele went the DINO-hunting "corporatist" route sometimes directed at No Labels allies, like centrist Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh and Joe Manchin, describing how “No Labels ‘Non-Party’ Equals ‘Four More Years’ for Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, Grand Theft USA”. Daily Kos offered a series of similar takes.

Keith Olbermann named No Labels one of the "worst persons in the world" last night (a badge of honor he gave to me earlier this year). He called us “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and “a bunch of fraudulent conservative Democrats pretending to be moderates and a bunch of fraudulent Republicans pretending to be independents.” Again, there’s the impulse to divide and deny the legitimacy of anyone who doesn’t conform to a hyper-partisan view of politics.

Likewise, Ed Schultz did a segment attacking No Labels as "fence riders.” When he brought Kiki McLean on, she explained No Labels’ belief that “if we start the day by calling each other liars, if we start the day by calling each other baby killers, murderers, racists, we don't get to the topic of substance.” Schultz called on liberal commentator Lionel Media to rebut, saying, “Right now this a rancorous [time], this is an uncivil world that we live in…if I went to John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi and said, now, listen, I want you two to find one we agree on that we can start. They'd say, ‘Nothing.’ OK. There we go.”

My War With Rush Limbaugh, by John Avlon - The Daily Beast

Now I consider that good. What ringing endorsements of No Labels! :clap2:

Olbermann, Schultz, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh all have the same type of modus operandi which is outrageous criticism. It's how they make their living. If more of their listeners realized that, instead of believing every word and hanging on them, even they might tone it down, and the listeners would too.
 
Nor did they name the country conservativeusa.org. Duh... Jes sayin...


I don't recall claiming that they did.

But to think that the foundation of the U.S. is an Non Labeled ideologically free effort is inane. And quite consistent with your POV.

And the No Labels website can hardly be considered biased already, when it's only been up a month. Look, Boebitch, if you don't like the concept of the site, tough shit. Just go away and find another thread where you can spead your special brand of vicious grousing. It must suck to wake up every day and be you.


If you actually had any knowledge, Haggie Hag, you'd recognize that the policies promoted on No Labels are the same rehashed progressive nonsense that the majority of the country opposes. Hence, the attempt to repackage it.

That may have worked with The One in 2008, but it's not workin' now, Haggie.
 
Actually, I think that description really describes ideologues better. I've always said that being married to an ideology keeps an individual boxed in and prohibits thinking out of the box.
When I go though posts on these boards, I find there are times that I keep on reading the same train of thought and at times word-for-word posts by different individuals all belonging to the same ideology.
Then there's Washington, it's rare when an elected official doesn't vote the party line. And when they do, they get chastised by their party. If they do it too much, their party finds someone to run against them. Heaven forbid individual thought and representing the constituents.!

You've got some good points. Ideologues, individualists, those were our founders, and they all had their individual thoughts on how our fledgling country should proceed. They had fierce yelling battles amongst themselves and within correspondence leading up to the continental congress. I just don't see any of our current leaders in that realm.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are ideologues...This is why you'll sometimes find them voting on the same side of an issue (albeit sometimes for different reasons) and drawing the ire of toady hacks from their respective parties.

They both voted against going into Iraq, for two different reasons!
What you say is true and that's why I respect both men even though I may not always agree with either them.
We need more people's representatives like these men.
 
You've got some good points. Ideologues, individualists, those were our founders, and they all had their individual thoughts on how our fledgling country should proceed. They had fierce yelling battles amongst themselves and within correspondence leading up to the continental congress. I just don't see any of our current leaders in that realm.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are ideologues...This is why you'll sometimes find them voting on the same side of an issue (albeit sometimes for different reasons) and drawing the ire of toady hacks from their respective parties.

They both voted against going into Iraq, for two different reasons!
What you say is true and that's why I respect both men even though I may not always agree with either them.
We need more people's representatives like these men.
Right....And of the two, which would be most likely to throw in with the "no labels" crowd?

Hint: It ain't the dude from Texas.
 
I don't recall claiming that they did.

But to think that the foundation of the U.S. is an Non Labeled ideologically free effort is inane. And quite consistent with your POV.

And the No Labels website can hardly be considered biased already, when it's only been up a month. Look, Boebitch, if you don't like the concept of the site, tough shit. Just go away and find another thread where you can spead your special brand of vicious grousing. It must suck to wake up every day and be you.


If you actually had any knowledge, Haggie Hag, you'd recognize that the policies promoted on No Labels are the same rehashed progressive nonsense that the majority of the country opposes. Hence, the attempt to repackage it.

That may have worked with The One in 2008, but it's not workin' now, Haggie.

And that's your opinion.
I fail to agree with your opinion.

Statement of Purpose
Americans are entitled to a government and a political system that works – driven by shared purpose and common sense.

Americans deserve a government that makes the necessary choices to rein in runaway deficits, secure Social Security and Medicare, and put our country on a viable, sound path going forward.Americans support a government that works to spur employment and economic opportunity by encouraging free and open markets, tempered by sensible regulation.

Americans want a government that empowers people with the tools for success – from a world-class education to affordable healthcare – provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way.

America should be free from discrimination and should embrace the principle of equal opportunity.

America must be strong and safe, ready and able to protect itself in a world of multiple dangers and uncertainties.

I bolded some points here for a reason, it sure doesn't appear to threaten conservatives.
But then that's my moderate point of view.
 
I don't recall claiming that they did.

But to think that the foundation of the U.S. is an Non Labeled ideologically free effort is inane. And quite consistent with your POV.

And the No Labels website can hardly be considered biased already, when it's only been up a month. Look, Boebitch, if you don't like the concept of the site, tough shit. Just go away and find another thread where you can spead your special brand of vicious grousing. It must suck to wake up every day and be you.


If you actually had any knowledge, Haggie Hag, you'd recognize that the policies promoted on No Labels are the same rehashed progressive nonsense that the majority of the country opposes. Hence, the attempt to repackage it.

That may have worked with The One in 2008, but it's not workin' now, Haggie.

Here's your sign ~~

2004031404_Display-25.gif
 
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are ideologues...This is why you'll sometimes find them voting on the same side of an issue (albeit sometimes for different reasons) and drawing the ire of toady hacks from their respective parties.

They both voted against going into Iraq, for two different reasons!
What you say is true and that's why I respect both men even though I may not always agree with either them.
We need more people's representatives like these men.
Right....And of the two, which would be most likely to throw in with the "no labels" crowd?

Hint: It ain't the dude from Texas.

You might be right but that doesn't mean I can't respect Ron Paul.
 

Forum List

Back
Top