Scozzafava backs Owens

[amrchaos]

Dierdre K. Scozzafava's decision to suspend her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District seat is a shocking development in what had already been an extraordinary race.

In her statement Saturday morning, the assemblywoman explained the reasons behind her decision: "It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so."

During the day Saturday, she began to quietly and thoughtfully encourage her supporters to vote for Democrat William L. Owens.

Watertown Daily Times | A changed race

So a supposedly conservative, really a neocon, Republican backs the liberal Democrat rather than back the other neocon. This tells me that the Republicrats are once again working together to maintain their duopoly. The Republicans and Democrats are willing to go against each other for their own personal gain, but when it comes right down to it they don't mind the other side having a seat if it means a third party doesn't get it.

Hmmm-----I need some popcorn and soda.
NY23 is becoming a real political dama!!​

Will the people go with Dede and vote Democrat--or will they go "Neo-republican" and vote conservative. This is a real test of the political leanings of this district. The Northeast normally send moderate and liberals to congress--I wonder will this district abandon the conservative cause and follow suit?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes just what the Republicans needed...Another phony Arlen Specter/Lindsey Graham type. What the H*ll was Gingrich thinking? If the Republicans do lose this seat,they have no one to blame but themselves. Stop running frauds as candidates and maybe the Party can begin to be rebuilt. They really blew this one. Lets hope the Republican leadership gets this message.

 

[Liability]

You're right, he's a progressive.

There is no meaningful difference between the silly term "progressive" and the fairly dishonest word "liberal."

There's a big difference between the term progressive and the term liberal. They're completely different ideologies. Progressivism is statism, whereas liberalism is rejection of statism.

Rubbish.

"Progressivism" is just a mealy-mouthed way of saying "modern American liberalism" and liberals ARE statists pure and simple.

And don't kid yourself (because you ain't kidding anybody else, either): so-called "progressives" are also pure statists.

Not one fucking bit of difference.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no meaningful difference between the silly term "progressive" and the fairly dishonest word "liberal."

There's a big difference between the term progressive and the term liberal. They're completely different ideologies. Progressivism is statism, whereas liberalism is rejection of statism.

Rubbish.

"Progressivism" is just a mealy-mouthed way of saying "modern American liberalism" and liberals ARE statists pure and simple.

And don't kid yourself (because you ain't kidding anybody else, either): so-called "progressives" are also pure statists.

Not one fucking bit of difference.

Incorrect.

I'd suggest you look into what is now called classical liberalism. This is what liberalism means in Europe, and what it meant in the U.S. until progressives hijacked the term.

And I stated that progressives are statists, so I don't know how I'm supposedly kidding myself on that one.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

There are no more true Liberals in the Democratic Party. They are all now Socialists. There is a big difference between the two. More & more people are beginning to understand this. John F. Kennedy would be called an "Evil Fascist" by most of today's Socialist Democrat loons. It's actually very sad to see what the Democratic Party has become.

 

[Polk]

You have zero room to chide anyone about ideological rigidity.

My bunch won big time in the last election. And we are not casting out the Blue Dog Democrats.

The only reason that the DNC tolerates the Blue Dogs is because it cannot function without them. The needd the Blue Dogs for a majority.

To pretend otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Tuesday will be an interesting day.

And the Republicans need moderates if they have any hope of ever retaking the majority.

 

[Liability]

There's a big difference between the term progressive and the term liberal. They're completely different ideologies. Progressivism is statism, whereas liberalism is rejection of statism.

Rubbish.

"Progressivism" is just a mealy-mouthed way of saying "modern American liberalism" and liberals ARE statists pure and simple.

And don't kid yourself (because you ain't kidding anybody else, either): so-called "progressives" are also pure statists.

Not one fucking bit of difference.

Incorrect.

I'd suggest you look into what is now called classical liberalism. This is what liberalism means in Europe, and what it meant in the U.S. until progressives hijacked the term.

And I stated that progressives are statists, so I don't know how I'm supposedly kidding myself on that one.

As is so sadly and frequently the case, it is you who is wrong.

So-called "CLASSIC liberalism" is a rather ironic way of discussing conservatism.

By contrast, I referred (clearly) to "modern American liberalism."

And that's just a meek version of socialism or communism.

Progressives are just liberals who try to hide their ideology behind a false flag term. The term "Liberal" sounds bad. "Progressive" sounds "different."

Try to fool the rubes. But it doesn't work.

Everybody and their third cousing fully well knows by now that when you claim to be a so-called "progressive," you are just a lib who doesn't like the sound of that word for fear it might acurately reveal who and what you are.

You are all just statists.

 

[ayiakri]

It's actually very sad to see what the Democratic Party has become.

The party that controls the Senate (with a super-majority), the House of Representatives, the White House, and the majority of State Governor's mansions?

Yes, we're feeling really down... LOL

 

[amrchaos]

My bunch won big time in the last election. And we are not casting out the Blue Dog Democrats.

The only reason that the DNC tolerates the Blue Dogs is because it cannot function without them. The needd the Blue Dogs for a majority.

To pretend otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Tuesday will be an interesting day.

And the Republicans need moderates if they have any hope of ever retaking the majority.

No--the Republicans need the right wingers to rise up and form a new party. Thats the only way the Republicans can return to their social libertarian roots. I thought the libertarian party was the cure--but it seems like the Republican label is the key to power for most right wingers.

 

[California Girl]

It's actually very sad to see what the Democratic Party has become.

The party that controls the Senate (with a super-majority), the House of Representatives, the White House, and the majority of State Governor's mansions?

Yes, we're feeling really down... LOL

I guess that depends on whether your allegience is to a party or a country. Personally, I pick my country over any party.

 

[Polk]

It's actually very sad to see what the Democratic Party has become.

The party that controls the Senate (with a super-majority), the House of Representatives, the White House, and the majority of State Governor's mansions?

Yes, we're feeling really down... LOL

I guess that depends on whether your allegience is to a party or a country. Personally, I pick my country over any party.

Coming from a member of a party that was openly hoping for a terrorist attack because they felt it would improve their shot at winning the election, that's a pretty ironic comment.

 

[California Girl]

My bunch won big time in the last election. And we are not casting out the Blue Dog Democrats.

The only reason that the DNC tolerates the Blue Dogs is because it cannot function without them. The needd the Blue Dogs for a majority.

To pretend otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Tuesday will be an interesting day.

And the Republicans need moderates if they have any hope of ever retaking the majority.

I couldn't care less about Republicans. They can get their asses kicked from here to doomsday and I won't care. The only reason I would see a GOP win as a good thing is that it annoys the crap outta liberals - that's always fun.

As far as I am concerned, both parties are scum.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Running a candidate who goes on to endorse a Democrat? Yikes! Yea the Republican Party is in trouble for sure. When people who claim to be "Conservatives" like Newt Gingrich endorse these kinds of fraud candidates,you know your Party is struggling. Time for new Republican leadership. Get rid of all the old school party hacks like Newt Gingrich. These people can no longer be trusted to lead. No more frauds like Arlen Specter,Lindsey Graham,and Scozzafava. Maybe this election will send a message to the current GOP leadership. I hope so anyway. I'm with ya Mr. Hoffman!

 

[ayiakri]

It's actually very sad to see what the Democratic Party has become.

The party that controls the Senate (with a super-majority), the House of Representatives, the White House, and the majority of State Governor's mansions?

Yes, we're feeling really down... LOL

I guess that depends on whether your allegience is to a party or a country. Personally, I pick my country over any party.

Wow - that wasn't even a very well-disguised attempt to question my patriotism, there, was it?

I've served my country, in the 101st ABN DIV, and I'm not a purely partisan voter (in fact, I voted for Bush's father in 1988, while I was still in the Army).

But as an atheist, and someone who believes that all people deserve equal rights regardless of their color, their religious beliefs, or their "orientation" (eg., gays and lesbians), and who also believes the Republicans have abandoned the idea of balanced budgets and using our military for defense rather than "foreign adventures" (as Washington put it), I'm not left with much choice but to vote for Democrats.

They are a flawed party, and their own worst enemy (and as a former Republican, for over a decade, I know they're a disorganized mess). They also don't balance their budgets, which puts them on equal footing with the GOP.

So given that nobody seems interested in reducing the massive public debt - and knowing that the Republicans just finished 8 years of growing the government faster than any President since Lyndon Johnson - I'm left to vote on issues like: Which party attempts to force their own religion into courthouses, which party tried to pass a constitutional amendment to strip a whole class of people of the right to marry, which party started a war based on absolute falsehoods (a war in which two guys the battalion I served in died)?

I'm not voting for Republicans again until they kick the Christian "right" out of any position of power in the party, and until they abandon (or at least moderate) their stances on social issues. Until then, they're the worse of two evils.

Oh - and I'm sorry, where did you serve again? You patriot, you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rubbish.

"Progressivism" is just a mealy-mouthed way of saying "modern American liberalism" and liberals ARE statists pure and simple.

And don't kid yourself (because you ain't kidding anybody else, either): so-called "progressives" are also pure statists.

Not one fucking bit of difference.

Incorrect.

I'd suggest you look into what is now called classical liberalism. This is what liberalism means in Europe, and what it meant in the U.S. until progressives hijacked the term.

And I stated that progressives are statists, so I don't know how I'm supposedly kidding myself on that one.

As is so sadly and frequently the case, it is you who is wrong.

So-called "CLASSIC liberalism" is a rather ironic way of discussing conservatism.

By contrast, I referred (clearly) to "modern American liberalism."

And that's just a meek version of socialism or communism.

Progressives are just liberals who try to hide their ideology behind a false flag term. The term "Liberal" sounds bad. "Progressive" sounds "different."

Try to fool the rubes. But it doesn't work.

Everybody and their third cousing fully well knows by now that when you claim to be a so-called "progressive," you are just a lib who doesn't like the sound of that word for fear it might acurately reveal who and what you are.

You are all just statists.

Clearly you've got me confused for somebody else, because I am neither a liberal nor a progressive and am certainly not a statist in any sense of the word.

However, the fact remains that you have your terms mixed up, or are simply unaware of the history of those terms.

liberalism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

That's a pretty good definition of what liberalism truly is.

 

[Liability]

Incorrect.

I'd suggest you look into what is now called classical liberalism. This is what liberalism means in Europe, and what it meant in the U.S. until progressives hijacked the term.

And I stated that progressives are statists, so I don't know how I'm supposedly kidding myself on that one.

As is so sadly and frequently the case, it is you who is wrong.

So-called "CLASSIC liberalism" is a rather ironic way of discussing conservatism.

By contrast, I referred (clearly) to "modern American liberalism."

And that's just a meek version of socialism or communism.

Progressives are just liberals who try to hide their ideology behind a false flag term. The term "Liberal" sounds bad. "Progressive" sounds "different."

Try to fool the rubes. But it doesn't work.

Everybody and their third cousing fully well knows by now that when you claim to be a so-called "progressive," you are just a lib who doesn't like the sound of that word for fear it might acurately reveal who and what you are.

You are all just statists.

Clearly you've got me confused for somebody else, because I am neither a liberal nor a progressive and am certainly not a statist in any sense of the word.

However, the fact remains that you have your terms mixed up, or are simply unaware of the history of those terms.

liberalism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

That's a pretty good definition of what liberalism truly is.

You blow hot and cold. I don't care all that much whether you are or are not a liberal.

You remain abundantly wrong, however, on what a "liberal" is. The dictionary definition you cite is fair at least under "c."

c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

I remain entirely correct in noting your error in regard to your silly pretense that progressive and liberal are anything but (in pertinent respect) synonymous.

Libs and progressives are interchangeable terms and they are nothing but statists.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Seriously,how could Newt Gingrich have endorsed this woman? She is now endorsing the Democrat for God's sake. Shame on Newt! I have lost all faith in Newt Gingrich after this debacle. I just put him on my list of phony Republicans who can never be trusted again. Is he still actually calling himself a "Conservative?" Yea he definitely joins frauds like Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham on the list. Go get em Mr. Hoffman!

People like you are what is bringing down the political system

You do absolutely no critical thinking. You vote and make your analysis strictly on party affiliation.

Look beyond the party a candidate belongs to. If you are capable.

There are good and bad candidates that belong to both parties.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As is so sadly and frequently the case, it is you who is wrong.

So-called "CLASSIC liberalism" is a rather ironic way of discussing conservatism.

By contrast, I referred (clearly) to "modern American liberalism."

And that's just a meek version of socialism or communism.

Progressives are just liberals who try to hide their ideology behind a false flag term. The term "Liberal" sounds bad. "Progressive" sounds "different."

Try to fool the rubes. But it doesn't work.

Everybody and their third cousing fully well knows by now that when you claim to be a so-called "progressive," you are just a lib who doesn't like the sound of that word for fear it might acurately reveal who and what you are.

You are all just statists.

Clearly you've got me confused for somebody else, because I am neither a liberal nor a progressive and am certainly not a statist in any sense of the word.

However, the fact remains that you have your terms mixed up, or are simply unaware of the history of those terms.

liberalism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

That's a pretty good definition of what liberalism truly is.

You blow hot and cold. I don't care all that much whether you are or are not a liberal.

You remain abundantly wrong, however, on what a "liberal" is. The dictionary definition you cite is fair at least under "c."

c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

I remain entirely correct in noting your error in regard to your silly pretense that progressive and liberal are anything but (in pertinent respect) synonymous.

Libs and progressives are interchangeable terms and they are nothing but statists.

Good catch, I seem to have missed that part you highlighted about government. At any rate, the majority of that definition is correct.

However, the fact remains that progressives and liberals are not the same ideology whatsoever. One can look at the election of 1896 for a great example of this. The Democratic Party nominated William Jennings Bryan who rejected the liberalism of the Democratic Party and took it towards progressivism and statism. Then President Grover Cleveland and other liberal Democrats rejected Bryan and formed the National Democratic Party which would stick to the liberal ideology. After this the Democratic Party moved permanently into the realm of progressivism and fully rejected liberalism. Despite this, however, progressives continue to incorrectly label themselves liberal. In European politics the term liberal retains its original meaning.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Good catch, I seem to have missed that part you highlighted about government. At any rate, the majority of that definition is correct.

However, the fact remains that progressives and liberals are not the same ideology whatsoever. * * * *

That's not a "fact" at all, and it doesn't "remain. It doesn't exist.

"Liberals" and "progressives" are just two ways (these days) of saying the same thing. And that thing is "shit."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

* * * *

Good catch, I seem to have missed that part you highlighted about government. At any rate, the majority of that definition is correct.

However, the fact remains that progressives and liberals are not the same ideology whatsoever. * * * *

That's not a "fact" at all, and it doesn't "remain. It doesn't exist.

"Liberals" and "progressives" are just two ways (these days) of saying the same thing. And that thing is "shit."

So ignore history and a current example of what the term means because there's simply no way you could be wrong.