SOCIALIST Sen. Bernie Saunders wants a Dem. CHALLENGER to Pres. Obama

[Sarah G]

Remarkably, the Socialist wants a challenger to the ultra liberal President Obama to serve as an anchor, of sorts, to stop the President's alleged drift to the RIGHT! ". . . I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him . . . ."



Sanders: Would be 'good' for Obama to face primary challenge - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

This President (with a couple of exceptions which I concede) has been as far left as anybody could possibly be and still be an American President.

There has never been as far left a flaming lib in the Oval Office as this President.

Yet for the Socialist Senator from the lame State of Vermont, that's not far ENOUGH left.

Putting his "reason" aside, who agrees with ol' Bernie?

SHOULD the President get a CHALLENGER from within the ranks of the liberal Democrat Parody?

Bernie can challenge him if he likes but you and Bernie are both stupid if you think Obama is a left winger.

No Sarah. Once again (to nobody's great surprise) it is YOU are are wrong and stupid, dumb ass.

President Obama is absolutely a left winger.

Denial of reality is a hallmark of you ridiculous liberoidals.

Sorry muffin top but you call anyone who isn't a Fred Thompson extreme wingnut, far Left. You're usually more than wrong.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Socialists and Marxist Communists always seem to be at odds. Hitler & Stalin squabbled like this as well. It's a stupid sibling rivalry. Both Saunders and this President are idiots. Give them both the boot in 2012. Problems solved.

 

[Woyzeck]

Irrelevant, even if true.

TODAY'S conservatives cherish the LIMITED Government crafted by the Founders and Framers.

Today's liberals don't.

That's not the case if you look on who you've been electing for decades.

It is the case. Period.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

El Presidente before he got elected, back in 2001.

"There ain't nothing wrong with the Constitution that ignoring it and changing it wouldn't fix." -- Typical liberal thinking.

Lol. Fantastic generalization, kiddo. Way to go.

My point still stands, since that doesn't actually rebut what he did when he was elected. Which was certainly not smaller government.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Socialists/Marxists? Who cares? They're both awful for America. To Hell with Saunders and Obama. We need real change. Make it happen in 2012 America!

 

[Liability]

That's not the case if you look on who you've been electing for decades.

It is the case. Period.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

El Presidente before he got elected, back in 2001.

"There ain't nothing wrong with the Constitution that ignoring it and changing it wouldn't fix." -- Typical liberal thinking.

Lol. Fantastic generalization, kiddo. Way to go.

My point still stands, since that doesn't actually rebut what he did when he was elected. Which was certainly not smaller government.

Oh please. Wojahowitz.

When he became President he discovered, to his frustration, that he could no longer get by with voting "present." He found out that just because he SAYS so doesn't mean people will automatically agree. He found out that governing isn't a matter of elitist liberal fiat.

But when you compare what he said he would do with what he tried to do, not just with what he was able to accomplish, you discover that (holy cow) he's a rabid lib.

 

[Liability]

Bernie can challenge him if he likes but you and Bernie are both stupid if you think Obama is a left winger.

No Sarah. Once again (to nobody's great surprise) it is YOU are are wrong and stupid, dumb ass.

President Obama is absolutely a left winger.

Denial of reality is a hallmark of you ridiculous liberoidals.

Sorry muffin top but you call anyone who isn't a Fred Thompson extreme wingnut, far Left. You're usually more than wrong.

No, you dishonest little troll, I don't. I call people who espouse liberal ideology "libs." Go figure.

Many of you libs, though, urgently try to cover your tracks. When pressed, many of you deny your lib inclinations and profess to be "progressives" or claim to be "centrists." You tend to fool nobody.

Some of you even go so far as to claim to be "Republicans." <<cough>> rightwinger <<cough>> <<cough>> Jake <<choke>>



You are always wrong. You have that going for you: A very petty consistency.

 

[Woyzeck]

It is the case. Period.

El Presidente before he got elected, back in 2001.

"There ain't nothing wrong with the Constitution that ignoring it and changing it wouldn't fix." -- Typical liberal thinking.

Lol. Fantastic generalization, kiddo. Way to go.

My point still stands, since that doesn't actually rebut what he did when he was elected. Which was certainly not smaller government.

Oh please. Wojahowitz.

When he became President he discovered, to his frustration, that he could no longer get by with voting "present." He found out that just because he SAYS so doesn't mean people will automatically agree. He found out that governing isn't a matter of elitist liberal fiat.

But when you compare what he said he would do with what he tried to do, not just with what he was able to accomplish, you discover that (holy cow) he's a rabid lib.

No matter what you say, he was still a conservative who expanded the government. That twisted definition of conservative doesn't actually really apply to politics.

 

[Liability]

Lol. Fantastic generalization, kiddo. Way to go.

My point still stands, since that doesn't actually rebut what he did when he was elected. Which was certainly not smaller government.

Oh please. Wojahowitz.

When he became President he discovered, to his frustration, that he could no longer get by with voting "present." He found out that just because he SAYS so doesn't mean people will automatically agree. He found out that governing isn't a matter of elitist liberal fiat.

But when you compare what he said he would do with what he tried to do, not just with what he was able to accomplish, you discover that (holy cow) he's a rabid lib.

No matter what you say, he was still a conservative who expanded the government. That twisted definition of conservative doesn't actually really apply to politics.

No matter what you say, it is liberals who seek to expand government. Always has been. Thus, although you deny reality using your twisted liberal daffynitions, you have actually helped establish how very liberal President Obama is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bernie Saunders? What was your second guess?

 

[Woyzeck]

Oh please. Wojahowitz.

When he became President he discovered, to his frustration, that he could no longer get by with voting "present." He found out that just because he SAYS so doesn't mean people will automatically agree. He found out that governing isn't a matter of elitist liberal fiat.

But when you compare what he said he would do with what he tried to do, not just with what he was able to accomplish, you discover that (holy cow) he's a rabid lib.

No matter what you say, he was still a conservative who expanded the government. That twisted definition of conservative doesn't actually really apply to politics.

No matter what you say, it is liberals who seek to expand government. Always has been. Thus, although you deny reality using your twisted liberal daffynitions, you have actually helped establish how very liberal President Obama is.

Reagan expanded the government too. He stepped up the war on drugs, defense spending, and wanted to ban abortion.

 

[Avatar4321]

If he really thinks that, then I would suggest he change his party affiliation and challenge the President himself.

Personally, I happen to agree. I think having more options in elections is a good thing.

 

[yidnar]

Remarkably, the Socialist wants a challenger to the ultra liberal President Obama to serve as an anchor, of sorts, to stop the President's alleged drift to the RIGHT! ". . . I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him . . . ."



Sanders: Would be 'good' for Obama to face primary challenge - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

This President (with a couple of exceptions which I concede) has been as far left as anybody could possibly be and still be an American President.

There has never been as far left a flaming lib in the Oval Office as this President.

Yet for the Socialist Senator from the lame State of Vermont, that's not far ENOUGH left.

Putting his "reason" aside, who agrees with ol' Bernie?

SHOULD the President get a CHALLENGER from within the ranks of the liberal Democrat Parody?

OOHHH YEAH it's starting already.can't wait to watch the libbs tear each other apart in 2012

 

[Political Junky]

Socialists/Marxists? Who cares? They're both awful for America. To Hell with Saunders and Obama. We need real change. Make it happen in 2012 America!

So, you'd prefer Tea Party or Neocon, both of whom were admired by Anders Breivik.

 

[yidnar]

Socialists/Marxists? Who cares? They're both awful for America. To Hell with Saunders and Obama. We need real change. Make it happen in 2012 America!

So, you'd prefer Tea Party or Neocon, both of whom were admired by Anders Breivik.

3 budget bills passed dumb ass

 

[editec]

No. Of course. Bernie's right. That must be it.

The President isn't a liberal at all. Yeah yeah. That's it. He's a CONSERVATIVE.

Yup, I said he was a conservative. I also said he wasn't a liberal at all. Way to take things to extremes to try and make a point. Emphasis on "try".

Well, at least you can admit the point was to mock your denial of the term "ultra liberal."

That sort of gets you a bonus point -- kinda sorta -- for having a hint of integrity.



Anyway, CAN you name any other American President more liberal than President Obama?

Sure, easily.

Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Carter..all enacted policies and had POVs about the point of government that were far more LIBERAL than Obama's.

To call the person who recently enacted or oversaw that joke of credit card reform, that disaster called health care reform, and the bailout of the world's BANSTERS a Liberal is sort of silly.

It ONLY makes sense if you define "liberal" in a particular way, which I think many here tend to do.

 

[Liability]

Yup, I said he was a conservative. I also said he wasn't a liberal at all. Way to take things to extremes to try and make a point. Emphasis on "try".

Well, at least you can admit the point was to mock your denial of the term "ultra liberal."

That sort of gets you a bonus point -- kinda sorta -- for having a hint of integrity.



Anyway, CAN you name any other American President more liberal than President Obama?

Sure, easily.

Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Carter..all enacted policies and had POVs about the point of government that were far more LIBERAL than Obama's.

To call the person who recently enacted or oversaw that joke of credit card reform, that disaster called health care reform, and the bailout of the world's BANSTERS a Liberal is sort of silly.

It ONLY makes sense if you define "liberal" in a particular way, which I think many here tend to do.

No no. You misunderstood. I didn't ask you if you can offer names. The question seeks the naming of names of Presidents who actually WERE more liberal than the clown presently holding that Office.

You seem to point to his essential ineffectiveness as constituting some kind of evidence that President Obama is not a complete liberal. Yeah, the health care overhaul efforts are a disaster, but it involves the assumption by GOVERNMENT of that entire realm. Kinda difficult to GET more "liberal" than that.

The BAILOUT of Bankers is also the insertion of Government into the realm of the private economy and business. Quite liberal.

And credit card 'reform" may prove ineffectual, but the goal has always been to get the GOVERNMENT more deeply ensnared in that area, too.

"Government knows best. ZOMG! There are issues and problems! Better call the Government in!" A very very liberal mindset.

 

[Vanquish]

It's not an assumption "of that entire realm" of healthcare. Just like public universities aren't a total assumption of the college business market either.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Ame®icano]

Remarkably, the Socialist wants a challenger to the ultra liberal President Obama to serve as an anchor, of sorts, to stop the President's alleged drift to the RIGHT! ". . . I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him . . . ."



Sanders: Would be 'good' for Obama to face primary challenge - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

This President (with a couple of exceptions which I concede) has been as far left as anybody could possibly be and still be an American President.

There has never been as far left a flaming lib in the Oval Office as this President.

Yet for the Socialist Senator from the lame State of Vermont, that's not far ENOUGH left.

Putting his "reason" aside, who agrees with ol' Bernie?

SHOULD the President get a CHALLENGER from within the ranks of the liberal Democrat Parody?

Socialists in Congress have enough reps in their caucus to demand for challenger.

 

[Liability]

It's not an assumption "of that entire realm" of healthcare. Just like public universities aren't a total assumption of the college business market either.

*rolls eyes*

When they get the full force of the bizzaro world of Obamacare rolling, you moron, you will sooner or later learn that the Government has no better business involving itself in the field of helath care decision-making than it has credibility in the realm of postal delivery.

Good God. You are one insufferably ignorant pontificating pantload, vanquished..

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, at least you can admit the point was to mock your denial of the term "ultra liberal."

That sort of gets you a bonus point -- kinda sorta -- for having a hint of integrity.



Anyway, CAN you name any other American President more liberal than President Obama?

Sure, easily.

Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Carter..all enacted policies and had POVs about the point of government that were far more LIBERAL than Obama's.

To call the person who recently enacted or oversaw that joke of credit card reform, that disaster called health care reform, and the bailout of the world's BANSTERS a Liberal is sort of silly.

It ONLY makes sense if you define "liberal" in a particular way, which I think many here tend to do.

No no. You misunderstood. I didn't ask you if you can offer names. The question seeks the naming of names of Presidents who actually WERE more liberal than the clown presently holding that Office.

You seem to point to his essential ineffectiveness as constituting some kind of evidence that President Obama is not a complete liberal. Yeah, the health care overhaul efforts are a disaster, but it involves the assumption by GOVERNMENT of that entire realm. Kinda difficult to GET more "liberal" than that.

The BAILOUT of Bankers is also the insertion of Government into the realm of the private economy and business. Quite liberal.

And credit card 'reform" may prove ineffectual, but the goal has always been to get the GOVERNMENT more deeply ensnared in that area, too.

"Government knows best. ZOMG! There are issues and problems! Better call the Government in!" A very very liberal mindset.

"More liberal" Again a queston of semantics. Yet I'll offer an example with some reasoning, something LIEability never offers when he pontificates propaganda with profanity.

Richard M. Nixon in 1972 went to Beijing and Moscow, he reduced tensions with China and the U.S.S.R. His summit meetings with Russian leader Leonid I. Brezhnev produced a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons. His 'liberal' accomplishments included revenue sharing, the end of the draft and a broad environmental program.

Much of which the current radical Republicans hope to eliminate today.