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

[MaggieMae]

more proof that obama is a centrist at best

Clearly. Like Jake Starkey and Rightwinger are Centrist Republicans.

There must be someone who you can run that fully endorses your values, can you mention a name or two?

I'm sure none of us can if s/he is a Democrat. They would never meet your ridiculous litmus tests. I can, however, name a few Republicans that would make excellent centrist presidents, but one who is running is low-man on the Republican wish list, and the other isn't even running for reelection to his Senate seat.

 

[initforme]

Bernie is the man speaking up for the middle class worker. Can the dems or GOP make that statement? Hmmmmm.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

Since Fly Catcher still can't address the point, as he always does, he deflects.

Despite Fly Catcher's endless cowardice, the FACTS remain. Pretty stark, too.

The CONSTITUTION crafts a limited government of enumerated powers.

Conservatives value that; liberals don't.

These are a LOT of "enumerated" powers, my friend, with many vague words used and therefore wide open to interpretation which, of course, has been done by both Republican and Democratic Congresses and the Supreme Court of the United States for over 200 years.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income tax".]

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[MaggieMae]

We are in agreement. Clearly, Obama is the fiscal Conservative and political Moderate he told us he was when he was campaigning. That's as clear as Jake Starkey's Moderate Republican credentials

Who will represent the Far Left?

Obama ran on a lot of things. Did you believe them all? I surely didn't. I was easy to see through that pompous and empty rhetoric.

In fact, I walked down to my local Obama campaign office and asked them for details on what Obama was going to cut when he went through the budget, line by line. I told them that if they provided me details that I would vote for Obama and help out their campaign. They scurried around and couldn't find any "details" which this President lacks. So, I walked out and voted 3rd party.

As for who will represent the Far Left? I have no idea. Why don't you stroll over to Democratic Underground and ask them. I keep getting banned over there for calling them out on their warmongering, police state policies, the war on the poor, war on transparency, etc.

Watching the DU is like having a ringside seat at a mental hospital, but funnier.

My brother used to own a "right wing"website and DU'ers would come over and abuse him and threaten him and say nasty things about him and his family. He asked them very nicely to stop and when they wouldn't he had his tech guy pull down the DU for a few hours.

Good times.

Anywho.

Will the Left, because there's no such thing as the FarLeft, set forth what they want from a candidate or it this like asking for the Global Warming Theory?

Yes, only the left threatens and says nasty things on a personal level. Good lord, some of you people don't get out much, do you... If you did, you'd know that you reek of hypocrisy.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is true and it has already been proved time and time and time again.

As you know.

We the people are the government, LIEability, in both the real and the abstract. The people spoke in November 2010 and changed course, once again; they did in 2006 and in 2008 and many times over the course of our history. This fact is apparent to everyone but to those who gain power only to lost it. The American people reject radicalism, in that respect I will agree that we are conservative - Americans support tradition but not to the extent they will reject a better mouse trap.

History records a nation whose people are curious and embrace innovation, accept iconoclasts and faith healers and other eccentrics but rarely follow them and reject those who want to effect change by revolution not evolution, as do the radical Republicans of which you seem to be a part.

The Democrats overreached on healthcare reform, and the special interests who profited from a broken system feared for the life of their golden goose. Going after reform was a mistake, it should have, in hindsight, been folded into a debate on its costs to business, industry and government (on all levels).

The Republcans have been painted into a corner by the new right, a coaltion of special interests and callous conservatives wanting to fix decades of deficit spending in one year. Moderates on both sides of the aisle know this is insane, and so do most Americans

A budget is a plan, and budgets are based on facts and projectons, not ideology. The GOP is in the process of overreaching and cannot articulate any reasonable argument to support their plan, a plan based on emotion alone.

Actually, Fly Catcher, you got that fundamental aspect of our Republic wrong, too.

No surprise.

Although the Constitution refers to "We, the People," that is largely just nicely couched rhetoric.

PROPERLY understood (thus explaining why YOU'D miss it) the UNION is WE, the STATES.

You, being a pontificating propagandized dull-witted stooge, BUY in whole the nonsense about how the GOP is supposedly owned by special interests. But with complete predictably you gloss over entirely the fact that the liberal Democrat Parody is OWNED by special interests.

A budget "plan" is not a work of science fiction, stupid.

It is pretty BASIC stuff albeit with very large numbers and major problems of our own making over much time and piss-poor effort. But it's still just one thing in its essence: it is accounting for (i.e. often approximating) what we will be taking IN as so-called "revenue" and how we will be spending it.

You idiot libs (and a whole assortment of faithless others over the years) have been FAR TOO CONTENT to ignore the hard part. You guesstimate revenue, you ALWAYS seem to find new cause to confiscate the WEALTH of WE, the PEOPLE (whom you falsely claim to defend) and then regardless of the numbers you SPEND more than we can afford and put it all on "credit" without a ******* concern for the fact that someday we are going to have to pay the damn piper.

You dickweed.

Yeah, budgets are SUPPOSED to be based on facts. But take the mote outta your own hypocritical eye, then, asshole. YOUR "budgets" have been pretty much entirely fiction, not fact and even at this dire late hour, idiots like you STILL refuse to believe that the illusory party IS over. It's time to pay the ******* tab.

So stop your caterwauling, you prissy *****. STFU and man up. We need to rein in spending IMMEDIATELY AND MASSIVELY. PERIOD.

Since when are Republicans right on budget targets? They managed to not fund two wars at all, and it's now projected that the final bill for Afghanistan and Iraq will come to between $3.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion, including nation building efforts, the cost of providing medical care, services and long-term benefits to veterans, and interest on what the US borrowed to fund those wars. None of the supplementals were EVER included in Bush's final "deficit" tally, by the way.

Edited:

 

[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.

You don't get credit for "attending Church" when you claim you sat there for 20 years and never realized the "Pastor" was a rabid lunatic.

My problem with Obama is not where he sits on the political spectrum. I'd agree, he's centrist, and on a personal level, not a bad person. I'm sure his kids love him. That isn't the point.

My problem with Obama from day 1 was that he had the least real experience of any president. Part of that was his youth when elected, but the other was that he really never gained the experience to understand problems.

His whole experience was 4 years in the US Senate. He's never run a state, a city or a business. He never served in the military. Even though he was a doctor of law, (JD), he actually litigated few cases in courts.

In short, he never got the experience to run something and get a job done, and it's showing. Even when his party controlled congress, he found himself getting rolled by Pelosi and Reid, and Reid seems to have even hijacked these Debt negotiations.

And yet the Republicans today, looking at the next election cycle, love to scream how they'd love to have someone win who isn't a politician--just a working stiff. Go figure.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's right. Bernie is a socialist and is the reason Vermont is probably the best state to live in.Free and equal.

Vermont is a dump. Even the cows wear flannel shirts.

And yes, Bernie is a socialist. The dumb-ass voters of Vermont want it that way because they are not free and equal. They are dim-witted jokes.

Yeah, since agri-farming wiped out small dairy farmers, we're back to milking goats, too. What a joke you are!

Oh! And Bernie Sanders was born in Brooklyn and still has that disgusting accent to go along with it. There's only thing worse than a New York accent and that's an abused Southern accent. Both mangle the English language and whenever I hear it, it's like fingernails scraping on a blackboard.

 

[initforme]

Again a pro middle class person. Why do some of you hate the middle class? If you are wealthy you are an elitist in my book. To heck with those people.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Do you only manage to gnaw your way through the leather straps once a month or something?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

They only try to expand government when it becomes clear that the "free market" isn't really "free" at all, except to the upper classes.

 

[initforme]

Go middle class!

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

You're the one who asked for more liberal presidents. You must tire easily, since you can't even remember the topic.

 

[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.

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

Oh, is that just sarcasm you've been using for, lo, over 100 one-on-one debates? Gosh, I can never read you, Lie.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Double LOL. Your's doesn't? I really think your particular tunnel vision only includes one eye. Sad.

 

[Liability]

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.

Double LOL. Your's doesn't? I really think your particular tunnel vision only includes one eye. Sad.

Again, I am pretty much indifferent to what YOU hink (and in this case I use that term loosely for your benefit).

YOur muddled "thinking" notwithstanding, it is not "tunnel vision" to have a clear and consistent vision and philosophy.

That I can plainly see the obvious errors of the liberal ideology is not tunnel vision, Magoo.

But even if you were right for a refreshing change of pace, my one eye would still vastly outweigh your stubborn willful blindness.

And since the concept seems to unduly confuse you, let me clue you in. I AM a partisan.

 

[Liability]

"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.

you asked who was more liberal than Obama, you have been given examples and then you claim its not on topic? You asked the stupid question in the first place.

Wow thats twice now i've pointed out glaring stupidity.

No. It's still zero.

The topic is still Pres. Obama. And it is perfectly ok to reject irrational and baseless "suggestions" or "arguments" as to which prior President allegedly fits the bill.

The "glaring stupidity," as always, remains yours.

Opening diplomatic relations with Red China is nothing more and nothing less than a matter of diplomacy. It was either wise, future-oriented governmental international policy or it was a mistake. It doesn't qualify Pres. Nixon as "more liberal" than President Obama.

Your FAIL is boundless, douche bag.

 

[Vanquish]

Liability used to have a decent post now and then. A fact or two. A working syllogism.
Now it's just gism.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Bernie is an independent. Maybe if someone finally DID get in the running as a third party candidate, it would finally get that ball rolling. I'd love to see the Independent Party finally take root, but it won't until it has structure and funding by a home base (i.e., like the RNC and DNC).

 

[Liability]

Liability used to have a decent post now and then. A fact or two. A working syllogism.
Now it's just gism.

Vanquished has never had a decent post to offer. He relies on lies.

He just conceded that I "used to" have facts and syllogisms, but at the same time he denies I have ever been objective.

He is impossibly dishonest.

And he can't spell very well, either.

 

[Liability]

You asked for ******* Examples and when proven wrong you punted. Its right there! In your own words again!

Jesus Christ you've turned into a stupid moron.

And you, being the dishonest fly ****** you always are, imbecile, failed to provide actual EXAMPLES.

Unholy Son of Satan, you remain a ******* shithead.