Quote :

"I guess I just think it'd be better if modern liberals would call themselves what they are: Social democrats, socialists, communists, fascists, or any number of ideologies (with definitions) that tend to fall under liberalism."

It's very clear that he meant fascism to describe modern liberals.

Which really shows his level of maturity.

Quote :

""a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties." That's in direct opposition to "modern liberalism," in many cases, so I think it's a misnomer. Party names are arbitrary, but ideologies have some meaning."

And I don't think any of that contradicts the the Democratic ideal.

We're all about individual liberty (gay marriage, abortion, 1st amendment rights, the rights of the accused (even turrists), torture)

And we do actively seek the modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor. The healthcare bill is a perfect example of this. Health is a prerequisite for any human endeavor.


[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 3:59:23 PM

^

Quote :

"Democrats (aka modern liberals) do support certain civil liberties such as gay marriage, but then they also tend to support regulations like smoking bans and various health concerns that amount to trying to make people eat or behave in a healthier manner (these tend to manifest as increased taxes on some item, which disguises it as an economic regulation, despite the purpose of attempting to control or cause certain behavior)."

Also, gun control... and the somewhat nuttier ones that would rather see a complete ban on firearms.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 4:14:50 PM

Quote :

"And we do actively seek the modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor. The healthcare bill is a perfect example of this. Health is a prerequisite for any human endeavor. "

Hahaha. Modification, that's great. Liberals have advocated government takeover of certain sectors of the private sector. I don't care if "the ends" are to help people out. The means are giving government more control over our lives, which means reliquishishing individual liberty. When you give government the power to "provide" something, you've given them the power to take something in the same stroke. It's all based on the faith that government will do the right thing with the power they wield, but history shows us that they rarely do.

If only we could have only "liberals" in Congress, right? We could finally have our sweet, sweet utopia.

1/8/2010 4:17:01 PM

Quote :

"I don't care if "the ends" are to help people out. The means are giving government more control over our lives, which means reliquishishing individual liberty."

In this case, I see it as a net gain in liberty. You don't. But that doesn't make my ideology inconsistent.



And going back to your original post on the issue:

Quote :

"Sincere, modern liberals do not deliberately desire to set up an authoritarian government. All they want to do is to improve the lot of mankind. They want everyone to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed, and they are willing to give government unlimited authority to accomplish desirable ends. They wish to override individual liberties only when individual liberties hinder government in accomplishing results which they approve. They want government to be powerful to do good without being powerful to do harm.""

You mean liberals have to balance government's power to do well with government's power to do harm?



[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 4:25 PM. Reason : NO OTHER IDEOLOGY HAS TO DEAL WITH THIS.CRAZY LIBERALS.]

1/8/2010 4:22:05 PM

Quote :

"The healthcare bill is a perfect example of this."

yeah. that's why people are FREE to choose whether or not to buy insurance, right? Oh, wait... fuck

1/8/2010 4:31:46 PM

You can't strawman liberal and left. Liberal ideology is the basis of 'left wing' political movements.

Hence, Aaron, this statement:

Quote :

"I guess I just think it'd be better if modern liberals would call themselves what they are: Social democrats, socialists, communists, fascists, or any number of ideologies (with definitions) that tend to fall under liberalism."

Is false.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 9:25 PM. Reason : >.<]

1/8/2010 9:25:21 PM

Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform
January 9, 2010

Quote :

"It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform - and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill."

Quote :

"But if [Scott] Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill. The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk's successor, but not until the state certifies the election. Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor's Council would take a while."

Quote :

"In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Friday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard. 'This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,' said Brown in a statement. 'Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we've already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign's leading supporters.' A spokeswoman for Coakley's campaign declined to comment Friday."

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249

How low will the Democrats stoop to cram this stinking, rotten fucking bill down Americans' throats?

Oh, and there's this from Martha Coakley's campaign:

Coakley misspells name of state she wants to represent
January 12, 2010



Paid for by Massachusettes [sic] Democratic Party and Authorized by Martha Coakley for Senate. Approved by Martha Coakley.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/12/coakley-misspells-name-of-state-she-wants-to-represent/

If Palin had done this, some of you would be going apeshit.

1/13/2010 2:46:21 AM

A typo in an ad? And in the little disclaimer at that? Why would anyone go apeshit over that?

Why would you even bother posting that? You're pathetic.

[Edited on January 13, 2010 at 3:45 AM. Reason : Are you autistic or something? Do little details like that irritate you?]

1/13/2010 3:44:24 AM

The hell you say, boy.

[Edited on January 13, 2010 at 3:56 AM. Reason : And I guess you missed the main part of the post. ]

1/13/2010 3:55:41 AM

Excerpts from This Week's transcript:

Quote :

"Why should the Tea-publicans, these Tea Party baggers deform what is real about this country, which is communitarianism, which is about a responsive, strong government?"

Quote :

"I think it's a test for the tea baggers moving forward, too."

Quote :

"But let us not forget: We are living in a period when bipartisanship has to go out the window. You have a Republican Party which wants to cripple this administration. And part of that is bringing down health care reform. And we are living through a period -- and Tucker and George may disagree -- I would argue of modern, unprecedented rhetoric savagery, where you have night in, night out an illegitimate president who wasn't born in America. People believe this."

--Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation

Without the slightest hint of irony.

Quote :

"Will you stop with the tea baggers thing?"

--Tucker Carlson, The Daily Caller

http://tinyurl.com/y8576or

1/18/2010 9:42:01 AM

Quote :

"Without the slightest hint of irony."

Conservatives originally coined the phrase, because they wanted people to send tea-bags to Washington to "tea-bag the Politicians."

1/18/2010 9:49:38 AM

^ Her intent is clear--to any who have a mind to see it.

1/18/2010 10:01:43 AM

Quote :

"Democrat Congress"

Quote :

"Barack Hussein Obama"

1/18/2010 10:04:35 AM

Quote :

"Dick"

1/18/2010 10:11:40 AM

the tea-bagger is bad (and kinda funny), but whats wrong with tea-publicans? also i don't understand why it makes you that mad when you consistently refer to the democratic party as the democrat party.

1/18/2010 11:03:19 AM

^ Because some far-left loon hypocrites think it's cute that the term also means dipping a ball sack into someone's mouth? You can just see the little charge some get each time they say it.

1/18/2010 11:10:19 AM

I'm pretty sure that everyone finds teabagging funny.

1/18/2010 11:44:04 AM

Don't be mad because the Conservatives came up with a dumb name for their political movement.

1/18/2010 12:22:16 PM

The probably with the "tea party" movement is that it's not really a movement, it's a huge group of people with wildly varying views and opinions. That doesn't keep people from finding the one guy with a racist sign or some shit and saying, "Ha! This proves that all Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians are racist!" Then, you have a portion of the movement that supports Huckabee/Palin/those idiots, interventionism, social conservatism, etc, so it shouldn't be confused with any sort of liberty movement. It has turned into more of a re-branded neo-conservative movement, with an unhealthy amount of populism mixed in.

1/18/2010 12:48:12 PM

MSNBC's Ed Schultz has a problem with democracy
01/18/10

Quote :

"MSNBC's Ed Schultz apparently doesn't believe in this whole 'democracy' thing we've got going on here in the United States of America. You know — where citizens get to vote for their elected officials and the one with the most votes wins? (Please don't bore me with the 'Gore won in 2000' whining. He didn't. In fact, it was his choice to go for a manual recount only in four cherry-picked Florida counties where he thought he might do best, rather than a statewide recount, because he knew Bush beat him in Florida.) On Friday on his radio show, Schultz said he would be willing to cheat in Tuesday's Massachusetts special election to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat in order to keep the seat in the Democratic column. The race is in a dead heat, but Republican Scott Brown seems to be surging as Martha Coakley (D) stagnates. This, in the most liberal state in the union! Schultz: 'I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.' Can't you just imagine the outrage by Democrats and the media if such a statement had been made by Rush Limbaugh? Democrats are already keeping those so-called 'bastards' out of any and all healthcare talks, and seem to be flipping the proverbial bird to all Americans by refusing to let us all see and hear what's going on. Democratic congressional leaders and their left-wing mouthpieces such as Ed Schultz are placing their colleagues in the difficult position of having to swallow the anti-democratic maneuverings, or do the unthinkable and speak up, speak out and put democracy and country ahead of party loyalty."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/76619-msnbcs-ed-schultz-has-a-problem-with-democracy

Quote :

"Schultz today said that was not exactly the message he had wanted to convey: 'I misspoke on Friday. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I meant to say if I could vote 20 times -- that's what I would do.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583320,00.html

What a bitter fuckhead.

1/19/2010 5:28:58 AM

Rush Limbaugh did endorse illegal voting practices in the last presidential election. the difference though is that for Limbaugh it wasn't hyperbole.

1/19/2010 7:29:07 AM

also i love how every thread at the top right now is hooksaw posting an article without any original thoughts or discussion. the guy just lives and thinks how the news tells him, its sad.

1/19/2010 7:30:48 AM

Quote :

"Can't you just imagine the outrage by Democrats and the media if such a statement had been made by Rush Limbaugh?"

There wouldn't be.

1/19/2010 9:25:39 AM

For your edification, here's pulljobs' one (1) TSB thread that didn't go beyond one (1) page:

message_topic.aspx?topic=535349

Now shut the fuck up.

1/19/2010 9:55:02 AM

Great contribution.

1/19/2010 10:08:35 AM

maybe I should create a new thread then every day I will post a new article from google news, I mean if that is the metric for posting I can make it as long as I want

or find one from one of my old screennames on here and btt one of those with an article and no discussion

or hell, then maybe ill get premie and write a script that just posts an article from my conservative news rss feed every couple hours in whatever thread is near the top. again with no discussion

and when someone calls me out for it ill just call them an idiot and retreat

then, just maybe, I will have hooksaw's respect

1/19/2010 12:19:21 PM

Quote :

"Can't you just imagine the outrage by Democrats and the media if such a statement had been made by Rush Limbaugh?"

No one gives a fuck what Jeff Christie says.

1/19/2010 12:28:05 PM

[Mike] Malloy: Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Bill 'Bombed' America on 9/11
35 hours ago

Quote :

"You crazy sons-of-bitches, you right-wingers. Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of those dumb-ass fifteen who came from Saudi Arabia? Don't you get that?"

http://tinyurl.com/yb79nud

1/22/2010 3:38:56 AM

Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Scott Brown Comment: 'I Have Been A Little Over The Top Lately'
01-23-10

Quote :

"Keith Olbermann apologized for his comments about Massachusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown Friday night just one day after being called out by Jon Stewart over the remarks. Monday night, Olbermann described Brown as 'an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.' The comment was immediately met with criticism from the right, most notably from Olbermann's own MSNBC colleague Joe Scarborough, who described the comment as 'reckless.' Olbermann responded to that criticism by doubling down the next night, adding 'sexist' to his litany of complaints against Brown. But on Thursday's 'Daily Show,' Stewart described Olbermann's comments as 'the harshest description of anyone I've ever heard uttered on MSNBC' and performed an impression of Olbermann's trademark special comments. Friday, Olbermann played Stewart's critique in full, offered himself as a guest for 'The Daily Show,' and responded with an apology. 'You know what, you're right,' Olbermann said to Stewart. 'I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/keith-olbermann-apologize_n_434129.html

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5l2Zy3FFmo

A "little over the top? WTF?!

1/24/2010 7:02:19 AM

that is credibility, the right wing talking heads never apologize or issue retractions. you've said john stewart is way liberal in the past and here he and the network are calling out olberman. will we ever see the right call out glenn beck or rush? no.

1/24/2010 10:27:05 AM

From The Economist "Leviathan Stirs Again" ...

Quote :

"Today big government is back with a vengeance: not just as a brute fact, but as a vigorous ideology."

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15328727&source=hptextfeature

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2010 10:38:04 AM

Obama has suspicious number of letter-writing fans named 'Ellie Light'
January 22, 2010

Quote :

"Ellie Light sure gets around. In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical 'Letters to the Editor' in support of President Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers. Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be in the newspaper's circulation area. 'It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything,' said a letter from alleged Philadelphian Ellie Light, that was published in the Jan. 19 edition of The Philadelphia Daily News. A letter from Light in the Jan. 20 edition of the San Francisco Examiner concluded with an identical sentence, but with an address for Light all the way across the country in Daly City, California. Variations of Light's letter ran in Ohio's Mansfield News Journal on Jan. 13, with Light claiming an address in Mansfield; in New Mexico's Ruidoso News on Jan. 12, claiming an address in Three Rivers; in South Carolina's The Sun News on Jan. 18, claiming an address in Myrtle Beach; and in the Daily News Leader of Staunton, Virginia on Jan. 15, claiming an address in Waynesboro. Her publications list includes other papers in Ohio, West Virginia, Maine, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and California, all claiming separate addresses. Light – who e-mailed an identical missive to this reporter on Jan. 16 without listing a hometown – would not answer e-mailed questions about the address discrepancies in newspapers that ran her letter, or her identity, although she did say she wasn't a former co-worker of this reporter's who had a similar name. 'I do not write as a representative of any organization,' she said in an e-mail. 'The letter I wrote was motivated by surprise and wonderment at the absence of any media support for our President, who won a record-breaking election by a landslide less than 18 months ago, and now, seems to be abandoned by all, supposedly for the infantile reason that he couldn't make all of Bush's errors disappear in one day.' University of Missouri journalism professor Tom Rosenstiel, co-author of a textbook on journalistic values titled 'The Elements of Journalism,' reacted with surprise and wonderment upon learning of Light's widespread publication under multiple addresses. He said newspapers might be able to avoid similar situations in the future by requesting street addresses and home telephone numbers from would-be correspondents, and verifying that those addresses and phone numbers exist. 'Just because it is inconvenient for us in the news business to find out who people are doesn't mean it isn't important anymore,' Rosenstiel said. 'It is not OK for people to have multiple identities. This is something that people in the news business and in the business of printing "letters to the editor" need to be aware of.' The Plain Dealer asks letter writers for a phone number for verification purposes."

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/letter_writer_claims_diverse_r.html

ASTROTURF!!!1

1/26/2010 5:51:01 AM

Do you have a point or are you just posting an article with no context again?

1/26/2010 8:44:27 AM

Quote :

"ASTROTURF!!!1"

1/26/2010 8:53:50 AM

Quote :

"Washington, D.C. August 2003 -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' announcement that 470,000 people abandoned their job searches in July and that 3.2 million private sector jobs have been lost since President Bush took office: “The fact is that President Bush’s misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since President Bush took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover. And today we learned that in July nearly half a million people gave up looking for a job. “Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families."

Hmmm...haven't seen a statement like this from Nancy on Obama yet.

2/5/2010 11:06:47 AM

1. Really. Who here is going to go to bat for Pelosi?

2. At very least, that statement was made in late 2003; not early 2002.

2/5/2010 11:35:36 AM

bump

7/12/2010 9:59:31 AM

Obama's top spokesman Robert Gibbs: There's 'no doubt' Democrats could lose control of House
July 12, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - President Obama's top spokesman admitted Sunday there's 'no doubt' Democrats could lose their grip over the House of Representatives in this fall's elections. 'I think there is no doubt there are enough seats in play - that could cause Republicans to gain control. There's no doubt about that,' White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told NBC's 'Meet the Press.'"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/12/2010-07-12_dems_losing_house.html

There is obviously strategy involved in this statement, but I still give Gibbs credit for saying it out loud.

7/12/2010 2:56:05 PM

Gibbs is just saying that the math is there. "There are enough seats in play". He's not even remotely making a comment on the actual chance of that happening, just saying that said chance is greater than 0%. If he said anything else, he'd be an obvious liar or he'd be bad at math.

The rest of that is just hyperbole and lack of context and whatever else the author of that article (James Gordon Meek, apparently) decided to insert. It's just the typical and obvious bias insertion that fucking everyone in the news media does now, and it's meaningless as an analysis of the political situation. I don't know why you post this sort of tripe so often.

7/12/2010 3:09:33 PM

The emphasis in that headline is misplaced, imo.

Obama's top spokesman Robert Gibbs: There's no doubt Democrats 'could' lose control of House

7/12/2010 3:10:14 PM

The emphasis in that headline is misplaced, imo.

Obama's top spokesman Robert Gibbs: There's no doubt Democrats could lose control of 'House'

7/12/2010 3:14:37 PM

If it were only Gibbs saying this--but it's not:

Obama Could Doom Democrats in 2010 Elections
July 9, 2010

Quote :

"The national environment, increasingly bad for President Barack Obama and therefore good for the Republicans, is a development that could not have come at a more critical time for the party of Lincoln--which the left-leaning members of the punditocracy declared all but dead after the last election. Rather than inaugurate a new era of activist liberalism, the Obama years are looking increasingly like they are sounding the death knell for the Democrats as a majority party. The reason is that many of the big and middle-sized states look ready to at least give the GOP a determinant voice in the redistricting process, which affects the makeup of state legislature as well as the U.S. Congress. According to a survey of state elections just released by Governing Magazine, 'More chambers are in play this year than in any cycle since at least 2002.' Moreover, the survey concludes, 'the Democrats have vastly more at risk than the Republicans do.'"

http://tinyurl.com/383l5qw

7/12/2010 3:37:20 PM

Quote :

"Peter Roff Polls Show Why Republicans Could Win Big in November By Peter Roff Posted: July 12, 2010 Things continue to look bad for the Democrats. Appearing Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs conceded there are enough congressional seats in play to deny the Democrats another turn as the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives. Continue reading… 6 Comments Obama Could Doom Democrats in 2010 Elections By Peter Roff Posted: July 9, 2010 The major political parties are playing for all the marbles this November. The next election coincides with the decennial census, which means we are once again on the eve of redistricting. The congressional reapportionment that follows the census elevates the upcoming gubernatorial and state legislative elections to a once-in-a-decade level of importance. Continue reading… 48 Comments Pelosi’s Healthcare Town Hall Plan Will Hurt Democrats By Peter Roff Posted: July 7, 2010 Congressional Democrats have spent most of the last year hiding from the voters, refusing to engage them in the town hall meeting format that proved so damaging during last summer’s healthcare debate. Now, buoyed by some carefully selected polling data that suggests support for the new law may be increasing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team “have sent lawmakers back to their districts urging them to hold town hall-type meetings,” the Hill reported Wednesday, “in the belief it could help Democrats avoid major losses in November.” Continue reading… 14 Comments Republicans Could Win the Senate in 2010 Elections By Peter Roff Posted: July 6, 2010 The United States Senate is sometimes referred to as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” With its members elected to six-year terms--sometimes in cycle with the presidential election and sometimes out of it--the Founding Fathers intended it to be a governor, not just on the power of the presidency but on the passions of the people. Continue reading… 9 Comments The New Healthcare Taxes Start By Peter Roff Posted: July 2, 2010 Though the White House is unlikely to mark the occasion with any kind of public ceremony or pronouncement, July 1 marked the day the American taxpayer started footing the bill for the massive restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system. Continue reading… 28 Comments Byrd's KKK History Shows Partisan Double Standard By Peter Roff Posted: June 30, 2010 The passing of Sen. Robert Byrd is an occasion for reflection, not just on his life but on how one particularly unsavory aspect of that life was treated whenever the subject was raised. Continue reading… 23 Comments Obama's Approval Rating Much Worse Than It Looks By Peter Roff Posted: June 29, 2010 Proving once again that he is one of the nation’s most astute political analysts, the Washington Examiner's Michael Barone makes clear that President Barack Obama may be in more political trouble than he or many of his allies are prepared to publicly admit. Continue reading… 30 Comments Democrats' Liberal Lurch Could Sink Them in 2010 Elections By Peter Roff Posted: June 25, 2010 The Democrats’ continued drift to the left has harmed the party’s political fortunes. Continue reading… 46 Comments The Democrats Were Against Petraeus Before They Were For Him By Peter Roff Posted: June 24, 2010 Gen. David Petraeus is now the darling of the Democrats. Having been picked by President Barack Obama to lead U.S. efforts on the ground in Afghanistan, Petraeus, the architect of the surge in Iraq, is being praised by the Democrats from pillar to post. It wasn’t always so. Continue reading… 27 Comments Obama Is Right to Fire McChrystal, But He's Still Feckless By Peter Roff Posted: June 23, 2010 By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal is now out of a job, thanks to some unguarded and unflattering comments made about President Barack Obama within earshot of a reporter working on a freelance piece for Rolling Stone. This is as it should be."

Is ur name peter roff or do you just keep his dick in ur ass?

7/12/2010 5:20:45 PM

^ Um. . .what? Take up your objections with U.S. News & World Report.

Thanks.

7/12/2010 5:33:20 PM

you didn't answer the question.

7/12/2010 5:34:31 PM

^ Please stop trying to simply ruin threads. Do you disagree with the position in the article above about the 2010 elections or not? If you disagree, please state why.

7/12/2010 5:40:03 PM

haha

Saying "Obama could doom democrats" it's not a "position" unless you suppose that the author actually believes "Obama WILL doom democrats" based on the tone and bias of the article. The fact that Mr Roff in his opinion page is trying to obfuscate his true beliefs in his own (opinion article) title is a little sad, and it's clear that he knows he doesn't have enough evidence to use the word "will." The Republicans have made more fumbles than Obama has since the oil spill, and the recent mid terms weren't devastating by any means for Democrats.

It's more valid to say the Tea Baggers are going to Doom the Republicans.

7/12/2010 6:13:34 PM

^ Keep laughing and telling yourself that:

Democrats acknowledge the House is in play in 2010 midterm election
July 12, 2010

Quote :

"Democrats have begun to publicly acknowledge that they could lose the House in an effort to drive their supporters to the polls while managing midterm election expectations. The message has been implicit for some time in the party's election-year messaging, according to sources with Democratic campaign committees."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/108239-democrats-acknowledge-the-house-is-in-play-in-2010-midterm-election

And it's not that I'm saying the Republicans are so great, it's more that the Democrats are so bad for the country.

7/12/2010 6:51:16 PM

I was merely laughing at your assertion that the opinion article was a position to be disputed or affirmed.

Could Obama doom the democrats? Sure, he could, or maybe he couldn't...

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2010 7:08:32 PM

^ The opinion of the writer at issue and others is based on growing evidence. But this, of course, is self-evident.

7/12/2010 7:14:03 PM