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

[Liability]

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.

Typical deflection effort from Fly Catcher.

The topic, stupid, is NOT Richard Milhaus Nixon. The topic is Barack Milhaus Obama.

Try to keep up, gasbag.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Far Left does not have a voice in the Obama Administration, the Coffee Party needs to select a third party rival for 2012

So why did you appear to agree with Liability? The "far left" wasn't listening to all of Obama's campaign messages anymore than the "far right" did. I knew at the outset he wouldn't even be as liberal as Hillary Clinton. Obama channeled Bill Clinton's triangulation (centrist policies) even more than his wife. He chastised black families for ignoring the health and education of their children; he wanted to see affirmative action include people from ALL races who are underprivileged and can't afford a college education. If he wanted to side completely with the far left, he wouldn't have abandoned universal health care in favor of reigning in insurance companies. He would have nationalized the banks and the auto industries that were near bankrupt.

 

[Liability]

The Far Left does not have a voice in the Obama Administration, the Coffee Party needs to select a third party rival for 2012

So why did you appear to agree with Liability? The "far left" wasn't listening to all of Obama's campaign messages anymore than the "far right" did. I knew at the outset he wouldn't even be as liberal as Hillary Clinton. Obama channeled Bill Clinton's triangulation (centrist policies) even more than his wife. He chastised black families for ignoring the health and education of their children; he wanted to see affirmative action include people from ALL races who are underprivileged and can't afford a college education. If he wanted to side completely with the far left, he wouldn't have abandoned universal health care in favor of reigning in insurance companies. He would have nationalized the banks and the auto industries that were near bankrupt.

Magoo is clearly not quite up to speed on the subtle use of sarcasm.

 

[HenryBHough]

I'm somewhat surprised Bernie isn't running.

Of course as a Socialist he would have no party backing to speak of.

He could convert to The Democrat Party and take on Our Kenyan President but then he's have to shift so far to the left that he probably couldn't stomach it.

 

[MaggieMae]

President Obama never has been an "Ultra Liberal". He's more of a slightly left centrist in the vein of William Clinton..and in fact..I think he leans a bit more right..then Bill.

Everything about Obama screams "Wonky Nerd". He's a straight arrow, personally...attends church, has strong family values and is a lousy dancer.

Wonky is a good description. He doesn't have Clinton's folksy charisma that always leaves people scratching their heads and saying to themselves..."Well, maybe he's right..." With Obama, people love him, like him, or hate him--the latter hearing only what they want to hear. Then there are those who can't figure him out. Mistakes were made, and he should have logically thought through his choices for economic advisors right out of the gate. You don't hire some of the same foxes who helped kill off your chickens to then guard the hen house. He didn't do that, and he's paying the price.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well it would take a socialist to to say obama is moving to the right.

Thus hinting that the left thought big 0 was a socialist at one point.

How further left can he get and still pay lip service to the Constitution?

Works for and hires union heads.
Takes from what works and gives to what doesn't
foments class warfare
say "fair" like it's fashionable
started more wars for no reason
wants to keep the poor, poor.

That's the standard play book.

Who would they put up? clinton is just to the right of him. grayson is unelectable, weiner did himself in, Blago is doing time, pelosi , Boxer is a traitor.

I'd love to see what they pull out as a 3rd [4th] party person. That way Americans can see the future of the DNC.

But the dems lack the balls to stray from the heard, so there will be no one out there repping the far left.

So when have Republicans strayed from the herd? They haven't either.

Your comments really say nothing, since it's historically a given that Democrats are the "party of the people" and they always will therefore do what they think is right for ALL the people, which translates into eliminating class distinction as far as equal opportunity. That isn't about to change with a changing of the guard.

 

[Liability]

Well it would take a socialist to to say obama is moving to the right.

Thus hinting that the left thought big 0 was a socialist at one point.

How further left can he get and still pay lip service to the Constitution?

Works for and hires union heads.
Takes from what works and gives to what doesn't
foments class warfare
say "fair" like it's fashionable
started more wars for no reason
wants to keep the poor, poor.

That's the standard play book.

Who would they put up? clinton is just to the right of him. grayson is unelectable, weiner did himself in, Blago is doing time, pelosi , Boxer is a traitor.

I'd love to see what they pull out as a 3rd [4th] party person. That way Americans can see the future of the DNC.

But the dems lack the balls to stray from the heard, so there will be no one out there repping the far left.

So when have Republicans strayed from the herd? They haven't either.

Your comments really say nothing, since it's historically a given that Democrats are the "party of the people" and they always will therefore do what they think is right for ALL the people, which translates into eliminating class distinction as far as equal opportunity. That isn't about to change with a changing of the guard.

It is FAR from a "given" that the Dimoratics are the party of the people.

They are the posturing, pontificating poseurs who invoke the "people" as pretext, though.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bernie is spot on when he discusses how the middle class is dwindeling. I will give him that. Nobody can really argue against this.

I've been hearing the dwindle middle class spew since the 70's.

most of the middle class got sucked under, the killing of the dollar made it harder and harder to get by.

It's taken that long for it to get this bad that's why. A quip (posted in another thread) in THE WEEK magazine, which quotes an article from the NYT confirms what can be found in any number of other statistics:

"Despite the soft economy, high unemployment, and stagnant wages for most workers, top executives got huge raises last year. The average paycheck for top executives at 200 big companies in 2010 was $10.8 milion, a 23% gain from 2009."

Big companies don't care about American workers because they can find cheaper labor overseas and also avoid paying taxes by moving their headquarters overseas. Halliburton now operates out of Dubai, but hey, it had over 17 offshore subsidies in the Caymans long before they did that. GE makes most of its small products in foreign countries now. Think of all the small businesses that support the major corporations who are also possibly unwilling participants but must go along if they are to survive. If you seriously study what's been happening, this article sums it up nicely:

Terrifying Truth: American Business No Longer Needs American Workers : Sierra Voices

 

[MaggieMae]

The Far Left, whom Obama does not speak for, no Sir, not at all, needs to run their own Candidate in 2012. They cannot allow any more Conservatives like Obama speak for them

I think you would go into cardiac arrest if one were to actually win.

 

[MaggieMae]

I really do pity people who depend on the government for everything.

So do I. But you only hear about the ones that do. Most don't.

 

[MaggieMae]

George Washington - (Deist, Revolutionary)
Abraham Lincoln - (Enacted radical change that collapsed a whole industry (Slavery) and caused the civil war)
Franklin Roosevelt - (Sweeping social changes)
John F Kennedy - (Began to enact sweeping social changes)
Lyndon Banes Johnson - (Civil rights reform)
William Clinton - (Tried and failed to enact single payer)

Pres. Washington actually valued the Constitution and understood the purpose of LIMITING Government.

Abraham Lincoln fought to preserve the American Union.

FDR was pretty far left, but not as far as Pres. Obama.

JFK embracing social changes doesn't make him more liberal than Pres. Obama.

LBJ: ditto what I just noted about JFK.

Bubba: a lefty without doubt, but not even remotely on par with Pres. Obama.

I have to disagree with FDR.

FDR was far more a leftist than obama. Obama copied fdr's useless ideas, fdr created them with no historical bs to back up his plans.

FDR ended the bread lines and put people back to work. But it took years before government sponsored programs like the TVA saw the fruits of those ongoing efforts. To call it "useless" means you know nothing about history at all except what you've been spoon-fed by far right conservatives who are only capable of articulating one side of a story.

 

[MaggieMae]

Pres. Washington actually valued the Constitution and understood the purpose of LIMITING Government.

Abraham Lincoln fought to preserve the American Union.

FDR was pretty far left, but not as far as Pres. Obama.

JFK embracing social changes doesn't make him more liberal than Pres. Obama.

LBJ: ditto what I just noted about JFK.

Bubba: a lefty without doubt, but not even remotely on par with Pres. Obama.

Washington wasn't "status quo".. He was a REVOLUTIONARY.. That in itself makes him far left. He fought against the most FAR RIGHT government ever conceived..a Monarchy. And by the way..he wanted a STRONG CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that.

Status quo again..would have been maintaining slavery. It was a radical departure to advocate Freedom for people not considered full human beings.

The rest of your assertions are pretty much nonsense.

Lets baseline the terms.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled
[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA

–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
EXPAND4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSE–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
15. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Liberal | Define Liberal at Dictionary.com

In a nutshell Conservativism is about Tradition and Status Quo.

In a nutshell Liberalism is about Change and Progress.

Wrong nutshell, wrong conclusion. Since Conservatives today are staining to get the government to live within the BOUNDS set by the Constitution, they are showing more fidelity to the "liberal" precepts of the Founders and Framers than today's "liberals" are even trying to show.

There is nothing wrong with caring about THAT "tradition."

And it may be change, but is far from "progress" to seek to deviate from those Constitutional bounds and limits.

How has Obama violated the Constitution? The "bounds" thereof have been subject to interpretation for over 200 years, and that hardly translates into a "violation" by any definition.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

I do. Maybe the problem is we have had too many far right leaning presidents, and arguments from the left are dismissed without debate?

LIEability's post is an example of someone on the right - far right if one considers his intolerance of ideas which conflict with his own - unwillingness to listen to and consider ideas and policy which do not fit into the dogma which has framed the conservative movement for 40 years.

Why do 'conservatives' fear ideas? Why still use "Red Scare" tactics now that Russia (no longer the USSR) and China have foresaken the economic theories of Marx and Engles? Both are conservative countries who reject revolution and are now Authoritarian and conservative.

What is wrong with universal preventative healthcare provided to all citizens? Why is that idea considered far left?

Since Fly Catcher has no intellectual integrity (actually no integrity of any kind) we can all see the result: slovenly "thinking" and silly conclusions like his mindless post.

He replaces thinking with mindless platitudes then dislocates his own shoulder to pat himself (baselessly) on his own back.

Pathetic mindless dishonest Fly Catcher is not that untypical of "modern American 'liberal'" thinking.

You do so much better in a debate when you're actually making points. But you inevitably get sidetracked by your idiotic need to make ad hominem attacks. At that point, you lose me.

 

[Liability]

Washington wasn't "status quo".. He was a REVOLUTIONARY.. That in itself makes him far left. He fought against the most FAR RIGHT government ever conceived..a Monarchy. And by the way..he wanted a STRONG CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that.

Status quo again..would have been maintaining slavery. It was a radical departure to advocate Freedom for people not considered full human beings.

The rest of your assertions are pretty much nonsense.

Lets baseline the terms.





In a nutshell Conservativism is about Tradition and Status Quo.

In a nutshell Liberalism is about Change and Progress.

Wrong nutshell, wrong conclusion. Since Conservatives today are staining to get the government to live within the BOUNDS set by the Constitution, they are showing more fidelity to the "liberal" precepts of the Founders and Framers than today's "liberals" are even trying to show.

There is nothing wrong with caring about THAT "tradition."

And it may be change, but is far from "progress" to seek to deviate from those Constitutional bounds and limits.

How has Obama violated the Constitution? The "bounds" thereof have been subject to interpretation for over 200 years, and that hardly translates into a "violation" by any definition.

I did not speak JUST of President Obama, first of all; and I did not say that he had already violated the Constitution. I spoke of the SEEKING to deviate from the Constitution. Specifically, the tendency of libs to seek greater centralized FEDERAL power despite the limits imposed on the authority of the Federal Government BY the Constitution which they attempt to "interpret" out of existence.

The threatened use of the 14th Amendment would be a good example if he dares to make such a move.

The standard liberal orthodoxy of pretending that the Government has ANY business (Federally that is) in "education." They don't.

The intentional misuse of the Commerce Clause as pretend "authority" for Obamacare.

The list goes deeper. Scratch the surface of most of his proposals and you get more of the same.

 

[Liability]

I do. Maybe the problem is we have had too many far right leaning presidents, and arguments from the left are dismissed without debate?

LIEability's post is an example of someone on the right - far right if one considers his intolerance of ideas which conflict with his own - unwillingness to listen to and consider ideas and policy which do not fit into the dogma which has framed the conservative movement for 40 years.

Why do 'conservatives' fear ideas? Why still use "Red Scare" tactics now that Russia (no longer the USSR) and China have foresaken the economic theories of Marx and Engles? Both are conservative countries who reject revolution and are now Authoritarian and conservative.

What is wrong with universal preventative healthcare provided to all citizens? Why is that idea considered far left?

Since Fly Catcher has no intellectual integrity (actually no integrity of any kind) we can all see the result: slovenly "thinking" and silly conclusions like his mindless post.

He replaces thinking with mindless platitudes then dislocates his own shoulder to pat himself (baselessly) on his own back.

Pathetic mindless dishonest Fly Catcher is not that untypical of "modern American 'liberal'" thinking.

You do so much better in a debate when you're actually making points. But you inevitably get sidetracked by your idiotic need to make ad hominem attacks. At that point, you lose me.

And yet again, your partisan nature shines through -- which you cannot see or appreciate.

LOL.

I was responding to Fly Catcher and he has consistently engaged in the use of ad hominems. But when I do it back at him it draws your unsought criticism.

Frankly, darling, I don't care if that causes my posts to lose you.

None of us are immune to the call of a good ad hominem now and again. Not even you, St. Magoo.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

It goes to show how far right the right has gone when they continue to insist that a President who supported extending the Bush tax cuts and even made further tax cuts is considered a far left wing ultra-liberal. Honestly, it's flippin hysterical.

Oh nozies.

You have identified that his actions and decisions do not coincide with his rhetoric and his beliefs.

And yet you loony goober lefties will absolutely slavishly bow before him.

I don't bow before him, but I think his alternatives were better than any Republican had (or has) to offer taking all the circumstances into consideration at the time. I would have preferred the Biden plan to get us out of Afghanistan and save face, but Obama extended the war based on Patreaus's plans, and that hasn't worked out. In fact, the situation there is becoming more corrupted with each passing day. Closing gitmo was a lost cause from the outset, and Obama should have acknowledged that but his statements reflected the general mood of the country. He made a few ridiculous promises that too many actually believed, like he would get rid of lobbyists strolling the halls of the Capital all the time with their influence peddling. Those were campaign promises that he knew couldn't be kept. But they all make campaign promises that make promises that go unfulfilled. So in that regard, Obama is no different than any other fine Republican who has previously served.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well it would take a socialist to to say obama is moving to the right.

Thus hinting that the left thought big 0 was a socialist at one point.

How further left can he get and still pay lip service to the Constitution?

Works for and hires union heads.
Takes from what works and gives to what doesn't
foments class warfare
say "fair" like it's fashionable
started more wars for no reason
wants to keep the poor, poor.

That's the standard play book.

Who would they put up? clinton is just to the right of him. grayson is unelectable, weiner did himself in, Blago is doing time, pelosi , Boxer is a traitor.

I'd love to see what they pull out as a 3rd [4th] party person. That way Americans can see the future of the DNC.

But the dems lack the balls to stray from the heard, so there will be no one out there repping the far left.

So when have Republicans strayed from the herd? They haven't either.

Your comments really say nothing, since it's historically a given that Democrats are the "party of the people" and they always will therefore do what they think is right for ALL the people, which translates into eliminating class distinction as far as equal opportunity. That isn't about to change with a changing of the guard.

It is FAR from a "given" that the Dimoratics are the party of the people.

They are the posturing, pontificating poseurs who invoke the "people" as pretext, though.

Bullshit. For years your kind (kind isn't a word usually associated with callous conservatives so I'll strike that word). For your years your set (can't use class either, for the same reason) has called Democrats "bleeding hearts", now you suggest this earlier attempt to use such a label as a pejorative was incorrect.

You're so full of shit LIEability your eyes and toes nails must be brown.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Constitution is a very CONSERVATIVE document. This is why guys like the President want to constantly "reinterpret" it to get around the restrictions it puts on the tendency of liberals to make the Government the nanny of all.

And whether somebody doesn't want to pay for war supplies and costs is not relevant to the topic.

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Irrelevant, even if true.

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

Today's liberals don't.

With the country's population at only 4 million at the time, they didn't have to worry much that a central government was needed to oversee rights given over to states. Most of the Constitution is a set of tenets, guidelines to set a course, much like the Ten Commandments. I mean how many people actually abide by all ten of those as first chiseled in stone by Moses? Things change, modernization happens, we are now a nation of 309 million. What would the framers frame if they had those considerations to deal with? They'd still be writing it. And it's also why the United States Supreme Court decides the law of the land, not the Constitution itself.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with that quote because it's absolutely right-on. Either that or you've forgotten that when the initial Constitution was written, only white property owners would be allowed to vote. Examples like that is why the first ten amendments were drafted before the ink was allowed to dry on the original.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hillary Clinton would definitely destroy the Hopey Changey One if she decided to run against him next time. He's just lucky she accepted that Secretary of State pay-off. That deal will prevent her from running in 2012. So i think he'll be safe. I can't see any other Democrats out there who could seriously challenge him in 2012. Hopefully he'll get ousted in the General Election though. Time for real change.

So Hopey Changey redux? That would be fun. Perhaps you should stop using that silly phrase?