I'd prefer that they both go away. Both are out of touch wealthy elites that have no clue regarding the lives of average Americans. Mitt would be a great president for the 1 percent, but a terrible president for everyone else.
I wasn't referring to the number of people who would vote for him, I was referring to whose interests he would represent as president. There is a difference. Your figure includes people who would vote for him mistakenly thinking he represents their interests.
I've seen her interviewed several times, wd. She seems like a very nice woman who in no way resembles your angry, envious, and caricature-ladened assessment. As for which individual represents whose interests (their all big-time crony capitalists, in my opinion), that's for each individual voter to decide, not you.
"I was referring to whose interests he would represent as president."
That is what I was referring to. Instead of you. You only think that he represents the interest of only 1%. The voters whose lives he would affect strongly disagree. I respect their informed opinion, rather than that of someone who knows only his own life and is extremely arrogant to claim to speak for everyone else.
Will said: "As for which individual represents whose interests .... that's for each individual voter to decide, not you."
Yes. Anything else is incredible ignorance exceeded only by incredible arrogance.
WD said: "Sounds like criticisms a Conservative would level at my fact-based observations."
One can only conjecture what this would 'sound' like, as it is extremely rare that anyone encounter fact-based observations from you. It's a beast rarely seen in the wild.
I am neither ignorant or arrogant, I'm just honest about who I think would be the better president. If I think I'm right, then OBVIOUSLY I have to think someone who votes for the other guy is wrong. I've explained this to you multiple times.
You're misrepresenting my views in order to bash me. I think anyone with critical thinking skills sees how nonsensical your attacks are dmarks.
dmarks: I respect their informed opinion...
No you don't. You think they're wrong. You've said so. You said Obama was clobbering the economy with high taxes and unnecessary regulations and that he should push right to work laws. If Obama is wrong (and you said he is) how can someone who votes for him not also be wrong (in your opinion)?
"I have to think someone who votes for the other guy is wrong."
You know what is right for you. The other guy(s) know what is right for them.
I'd rather believe them than you. Nothing against you, actually... if someone else told a similar whopper and made a claim that someone represented you, WD, and you disagreed, I would take your side also. You know your lives. And they know theirs.
"No you don't. You think they're wrong. You've said so."
Whether or not I think they are wrong, I respect it if they tell me Obama, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Buzz Lightyear, or Dennis Kucinich represent their interest. Only these people know. I'd be arrogant to say otherwise.
You may find the idea of respecting informed opinions to be BS, but if you don't do this, you come across as a ranting crybaby.
Seriously, the "99%" name thing is a deceptive marketing trick that few buy. Sort of like "Moral Majority", which, like the "99%", represented far less than half the people instead of a majority.
dmarks: Whether or not I think they are wrong, I respect it if they tell me Obama, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Buzz Lightyear, or Dennis Kucinich represent their interest.
So you're saying you respect a person's choice even if they're wrong. I said the SAME THING... but you continue to call me arrogant. Now it should stop, as you just admitted here that you've been lying.
dmarks: You may find the idea of respecting informed opinions to be BS...
I do not. What is BS is you lying about thinking this. Who the hell would "respect" someone who thinks Buzz Lightyear represents them? You gave yourself away by including that name.
"So you're saying you respect a person's choice even if they're wrong. I said the SAME THING"
No, it is not. Just because they might be wrong doesn't mean they are "duped" (a condescending and arrogant thing to say). Nor does it mean that we should disrespect their decision to support whichever candidate that represents their interests.
"Who the hell would "respect" someone who thinks Buzz Lightyear represents them? You gave yourself away by including that name."
I thought I'd give you some red meat to get your teeth into, because you are repeatedly failing to make any valid points about the real issues.
So here, you have a Buzz Lightyear argument you can win at will. Have at it.
dmarks: I thought I'd give you some red meat to get your teeth into, because you are repeatedly failing to make any valid points about the real issues.
Sure, that's exactly what happened (and I mean that sarcastically, Mr. I take everything literally).
And I stand by my "duped" opinion. The difference between thinking someone is wrong and they are duped isn't arrogance. It's a dmarks redefinition that I reject.
And, I think all this redefining of words is something a person does when they repeatedly fail to make any valid points about the real issues.
dmarks: It all comes from your redefining of words like corporate and propaganda. And even racism.
You redefined these words, not me. I go with the dictionary definitions on "propaganda" and "racism" and the common usage (politically speaking) definition of "corporate" (which I googled and happened to find at the Urban dictionary).
Calling someone a "corporate Democrat" or a "corporate Republican" means the politician in question does something for the corporation in question in return for campaign contributions. The term is widely used. You pretending to be unaware of it is just silly.
dmarks: Since it came up in regards to Les, do you have an example of where he is duped?.
He's been duped by Ron Paul into believing that returning to the gold standard would be a good idea (it's actually a bad idea).
Here RN argues that a return to the gold standard, [isn't] unreasonable.
Returning to the gold standard could ruin the economy, this fellow says? Hm, as opposed to this endless printing of monopoly money which is in fact strengthening the economy (not that I'm necessarily advocating the former, either, mind you).......And you do realize, don't you, that RN could easily find an article by an equally smart individual who totally concludes the opposite?
No, that did not occur to me!* So, do you not consider someone smart who is a professor at a university? What about someone professionally employed as a scientist? Dummies? I ask because I suspect that if RN or dmarks said I was duped for believing in the research and conclusions of "The Spirit Level", you might agree.
Will: ...not that I'm necessarily advocating the former, either, mind you...
But you did assume that since I think returning to the gold standard would be bad, that I AM advocating that the "endless printing of monopoly money" is good?
FYI, any article by an "equally smart individual who totally concludes the opposite" would be wrong. Or, I think you could at least agree that they hold a minority opinion. They aren't many people who think returning to the gold standard would be a good idea.
Wikipedia says that "Mainstream economists believe that economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing money supply during economic downturns. Following a gold standard would mean that the amount of money would be determined by the supply of gold, and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy in times of economic recession. Such reason is often employed to partially blame the gold standard for the Great Depression, citing that the Federal Reserve couldn't expand credit enough to offset the deflationary forces at work in the market".
Conclusion: Mainstream economists largely see the gold standard as not a good idea. They do, however, see advantages to the "printing of monopoly money" (which they call Quantitative easing).
a) I didn't say that the person who wrote that article wasn't smart (my point was that economics is a soft science and that you could clearly find one to say just about anything). b) Keynesians (of which you admittedly are) are significantly more likely to greatly inflate the money supply than Austrians and certain Monetists. c) Minority opinions are frequently the correct ones; Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc.. d) The authors of the "The Spirit Level" clearly had minimal knowledge of statistics and the scientific method. I mean, if I ever handed in graphs like that, I would have been laughed off of frigging campus.
Will: The authors of the "The Spirit Level" clearly had minimal knowledge of statistics and the scientific method.
They're both scientists.
Will: Minority opinions are frequently the correct ones.
I disagree. Just because you can point to some that were does not mean that if some nut comes up with a theory it's right... because it's "minority". That's illogical.
Although... the "opinions" (backed up by 30 years of research) presented in "The Spirit Level" are "minority" (simply because not a lot of people are even aware of the book). So I guess the odds that "The Spirit Level" is right and Will Hart is wrong just went up significantly.
a) They don't understand introductory statistics. b) I didn't say that "if some nut comes up with a theory it's right...because it's a minority." That's a lie. But, yes, as Michael Crichton correctly pointed out, most of the great discoveries and advances were a departure from the norm and not a continuation of it. c) I don't care how many years that they researched it. Their methodology was shit and their conclusions pure speculation. Had these idiots looked at other indicators, they would have discovered an entirely different result.
For instance, wd, had these 2 knuckleheads decided to examine alcohol consumption, crime rates, suicide rates, divorce rates, charitable contributions , and volunteerism, they would have found that the lesser equal countries were actually better off than the equal ones.............And I ask you, have you ever taken a statistics course? 'Cause if you had, you would have clearly known that when doing a regression analysis, you always disregard the outlier score (something that has to do with variance). These idiots didn't even know that! LOL
The nuts I was talking about are Libertarians. So, YES, you did say it. I did not lie. And no, I've never taken a course in statistics.
I think the reason this book has (Absolutely HAS to be wrong in your mind) is because it would cause you to have to completely rethink your (largely conservative) worldview.
"Calling someone a "corporate Democrat" or a "corporate Republican" means the politician in question does something for the corporation in question in return for campaign contributions. The term is widely used. You pretending to be unaware of it is just silly."
Yet, you are using it for people who quite often don't do anything in return for campaign contributions. Or for organizations such as the DNC, which has nothing to do with this.
By the way, Feingold gets thousands and thousands of dollars for of campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood (a corporation) and from elsewhere in the abortion industry. In return, he votes in an extreme out-of-touch fashion to increase abortions and to wast precious Federal dollars in corporate welfare handouts to the abortion industry. Russ Feingold does easily meet your definition of corporate Democrat.
A hot topic for what, 40 years? Why the Christ can' t we use common sense peppered with a ample dose of understanding and revert to the SJC's 1972 For Roe -vs- Wade and let it go?
Don't we have more pressing national issues affecting us all?
wd, I said JUST BECAUSE a viewpoint is a minority viewpoint doesn't make it wrong. I never said that a minority viewpoint is DE FACTO the correct one. See the difference?......And if a conservative researcher had said that unequal societies are better due to the above-mentioned indicators AND had used a crappy analysis to boot, I would have taken that researcher to task, too.
dmarks: Yet, you are using it for people who quite often don't do anything in return for campaign contributions.
It also applies to Democrats who approve of legislation in return for campaign cash. If you're a Democrat and believe Democrats should whore themselves out to corporations in return for money (donate to a cause or campaign)... then you're a corporate Democrat.
BTW, the term "corporate Republican" is redundant.
dmarks: Feingold gets thousands and thousands of dollars for of campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood (a corporation)
Russ Feingold votes his conscience. There is no quid pro quo involved. They donate to his campaign because they like the way he votes. He does not modify his votes to get the money.
dmarks: In return, he votes in an extreme out-of-touch fashion...
Russ Feingold isn't a senator anymore, if you were not aware. But when he was he did NOT do anything "in return". He voted his conscience and represented his constituents.
Also, how is his voting "out of touch"? You've said YOURSELF that people are evenly divided (more or less) regarding pro choice versus pro life. Russ Feingold was re-elected a number of times, so clearly the voters liked his position.
"BTW, the term "corporate Republican" is redundant."
It fits Republicans less than Democrats. Remember, most Republicans have opposed TARP and the rest of the bailouts: all unprecedented gifts to corporations from government. Most Democrats support these.
In contrast, there's the adjective "statist", used for those who vote in favor of the ruling elites. Democrats fit this more than Republicans. They tend more to vote for more riches and power and control for the powerful and privileged than Republicans do.
-------------------------
Now, here we get into some typical hypocrisy from WD:
"Russ Feingold votes his conscience. There is no quid pro quo involved. They donate to his campaign because they like the way he votes. He does not modify his votes to get the money."
So, I see, the difference between those of one party getting bribed to vote a certain way and those of another party being bribed to vote a certain way is whether or not there is a (D) or an (R) after their name.
"Russ Feingold isn't a senator anymore, if you were not aware."
Oops. I was wrong on that.
"But when he was he did NOT do anything "in return". He voted his conscience and represented his constituents."
Of course. Because when he was bribed by campaign contributions and voted, you personally agreed with the groups bribing him and how he voted. So you let him off the hook.
dmarks: So, I see, the difference between those of one party getting bribed to vote a certain way and those of another party being bribed to vote a certain way is whether or not there is a (D) or an (R) after their name.
No, you see wrong. We were discussing different types of Democrats. Democrats never have an (R) after their name.
Man, you were WAY wrong on that one. All in a feeble attempt to label me a hypocrite.
Russ Feingold believes in a woman's right to choose and supports leaving these matters in the hands of women and their doctors. He didn't modify his position in response to bribes. If it was just about the money with him he would have went with the pro-choice people. They've got more.
dmarks, you must not vote. How can you if you think they're ALL liars?
Ultimately voters have to make decisions about who they believe. The way you're framing this I'm a hypocrite no matter who I vote for. They all accept campaign contributions.
"No, you see wrong. We were discussing different types of Democrats. Democrats never have an (R) after their name."
Actually, you yourself introduced Republicans into this conversation in one of your comments. I didn't do it: you did. But it is fine with me if you clobber yourself for mentioning Republicans as you did here.
dmarks: Which is your weasley way of saying he favors abortion.
I would not say Russ Feingold favors abortion... weasley or straight up, because that would be a lie. He believes abortions should be safe, legal, and RARE.
dmarks: Actually, you yourself introduced Republicans into this conversation in one of your comments.
So what if I mentioned Republicans? The fact remains we were discussing Democrats and I criticized Democrats, thus your assertion that I give a pass to some politicians because they have a (D) after their name is false.
That is simply not true for Feingold. He favors abortions at all stages (an extreme view) and also favors wasting tax dollars to encourage them. Which means be wants more of them. That is no wanting it 'rare' at all.
Thankfully as you pointed out he is not in office anymore.
dmarks: That is simply not true for Feingold. He favors abortions at all stages (an extreme view).
It is true: Feingold believes abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.
He does not "favor" abortions at all stages. He does not favor abortions at all. He favors the decision be left to qualified doctors and not unqualified legislators.
Actually, he does. Feingold very strongly favors abortion. In the other discussion on his views, I linked to a non-partisand site that had extensive examples.
It is simply untrue that he wants abortions "rare". He Wants them increased, and supports governent funding to encourage them, and opposes any efforts that might reduce the number of abortions.
"He favors the decision be left to qualified doctors"
You mean unqualified. Because in the other discussion, you appointed doctors as judge, jury, and executioner to wantonly kill born American citizens on a whim in the name of expanding abortions. Only a jury is qualified to do this. Not a bloodthirsty mercenary with a medical degree.
I'm in agreement with him on this.
Which means you too strongly favor abortions in a rather extreme way.
Also, refer to the other item for a sane, compromise view on abortion. One agreed to by me, John, and Will. One that eschewed extreme. Why not step in from the cold fringes and embrace some sense, and sign on too?
dmarks: Why not step in from the cold fringes and embrace some sense, and sign on too?
Because my position does not lie on the "cold fringes"... you only imagine it does. I told you I agreed with Russ Feingold that abortions should be safe, legal and rare... and you made up a new position for Mr. Feingold (and myself) out of whole cloth.
My position on abortion is sensible and reasonable and I'm not changing it.
37 comments:
I'd prefer that they both go away. Both are out of touch wealthy elites that have no clue regarding the lives of average Americans. Mitt would be a great president for the 1 percent, but a terrible president for everyone else.
And for some reality, Romney would be a great President for about 45%, just like Obama. That's a lot different from 1%.
I wasn't referring to the number of people who would vote for him, I was referring to whose interests he would represent as president. There is a difference. Your figure includes people who would vote for him mistakenly thinking he represents their interests.
I've seen her interviewed several times, wd. She seems like a very nice woman who in no way resembles your angry, envious, and caricature-ladened assessment. As for which individual represents whose interests (their all big-time crony capitalists, in my opinion), that's for each individual voter to decide, not you.
Who said I was angry or envious? Sounds like criticisms a Conservative would level at my fact-based observations.
Sorry, it sounded a little harsh (especially in that it isn't HER who is running).
"I was referring to whose interests he would represent as president."
That is what I was referring to. Instead of you. You only think that he represents the interest of only 1%. The voters whose lives he would affect strongly disagree. I respect their informed opinion, rather than that of someone who knows only his own life and is extremely arrogant to claim to speak for everyone else.
Will said: "As for which individual represents whose interests .... that's for each individual voter to decide, not you."
Yes. Anything else is incredible ignorance exceeded only by incredible arrogance.
WD said: "Sounds like criticisms a Conservative would level at my fact-based observations."
One can only conjecture what this would 'sound' like, as it is extremely rare that anyone encounter fact-based observations from you. It's a beast rarely seen in the wild.
I am neither ignorant or arrogant, I'm just honest about who I think would be the better president. If I think I'm right, then OBVIOUSLY I have to think someone who votes for the other guy is wrong. I've explained this to you multiple times.
You're misrepresenting my views in order to bash me. I think anyone with critical thinking skills sees how nonsensical your attacks are dmarks.
dmarks: I respect their informed opinion...
No you don't. You think they're wrong. You've said so. You said Obama was clobbering the economy with high taxes and unnecessary regulations and that he should push right to work laws. If Obama is wrong (and you said he is) how can someone who votes for him not also be wrong (in your opinion)?
This "respect for informed opinions" is utter BS.
"I have to think someone who votes for the other guy is wrong."
You know what is right for you. The other guy(s) know what is right for them.
I'd rather believe them than you. Nothing against you, actually... if someone else told a similar whopper and made a claim that someone represented you, WD, and you disagreed, I would take your side also. You know your lives. And they know theirs.
"No you don't. You think they're wrong. You've said so."
Whether or not I think they are wrong, I respect it if they tell me Obama, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Buzz Lightyear, or Dennis Kucinich represent their interest. Only these people know. I'd be arrogant to say otherwise.
You may find the idea of respecting informed opinions to be BS, but if you don't do this, you come across as a ranting crybaby.
Seriously, the "99%" name thing is a deceptive marketing trick that few buy. Sort of like "Moral Majority", which, like the "99%", represented far less than half the people instead of a majority.
dmarks: Whether or not I think they are wrong, I respect it if they tell me Obama, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Buzz Lightyear, or Dennis Kucinich represent their interest.
So you're saying you respect a person's choice even if they're wrong. I said the SAME THING... but you continue to call me arrogant. Now it should stop, as you just admitted here that you've been lying.
dmarks: You may find the idea of respecting informed opinions to be BS...
I do not. What is BS is you lying about thinking this. Who the hell would "respect" someone who thinks Buzz Lightyear represents them? You gave yourself away by including that name.
"So you're saying you respect a person's choice even if they're wrong. I said the SAME THING"
No, it is not. Just because they might be wrong doesn't mean they are "duped" (a condescending and arrogant thing to say). Nor does it mean that we should disrespect their decision to support whichever candidate that represents their interests.
"Who the hell would "respect" someone who thinks Buzz Lightyear represents them? You gave yourself away by including that name."
I thought I'd give you some red meat to get your teeth into, because you are repeatedly failing to make any valid points about the real issues.
So here, you have a Buzz Lightyear argument you can win at will. Have at it.
dmarks: I thought I'd give you some red meat to get your teeth into, because you are repeatedly failing to make any valid points about the real issues.
Sure, that's exactly what happened (and I mean that sarcastically, Mr. I take everything literally).
And I stand by my "duped" opinion. The difference between thinking someone is wrong and they are duped isn't arrogance. It's a dmarks redefinition that I reject.
And, I think all this redefining of words is something a person does when they repeatedly fail to make any valid points about the real issues.
"And I stand by my "duped" opinion."
But can you support it? Since it came up in regards to Les, do you have an example of where he is duped?
I disagree with him a lot, but I have found he is very well researched and nobody's fool.
"And, I think all this redefining of words..."
It all comes from your redefining of words like corporate and propaganda. And even racism.
dmarks: It all comes from your redefining of words like corporate and propaganda. And even racism.
You redefined these words, not me. I go with the dictionary definitions on "propaganda" and "racism" and the common usage (politically speaking) definition of "corporate" (which I googled and happened to find at the Urban dictionary).
Calling someone a "corporate Democrat" or a "corporate Republican" means the politician in question does something for the corporation in question in return for campaign contributions. The term is widely used. You pretending to be unaware of it is just silly.
dmarks: Since it came up in regards to Les, do you have an example of where he is duped?.
He's been duped by Ron Paul into believing that returning to the gold standard would be a good idea (it's actually a bad idea).
Here RN argues that a return to the gold standard, [isn't] unreasonable.
Returning to the gold standard could ruin the economy, this fellow says? Hm, as opposed to this endless printing of monopoly money which is in fact strengthening the economy (not that I'm necessarily advocating the former, either, mind you).......And you do realize, don't you, that RN could easily find an article by an equally smart individual who totally concludes the opposite?
No, that did not occur to me!* So, do you not consider someone smart who is a professor at a university? What about someone professionally employed as a scientist? Dummies? I ask because I suspect that if RN or dmarks said I was duped for believing in the research and conclusions of "The Spirit Level", you might agree.
Will: ...not that I'm necessarily advocating the former, either, mind you...
But you did assume that since I think returning to the gold standard would be bad, that I AM advocating that the "endless printing of monopoly money" is good?
FYI, any article by an "equally smart individual who totally concludes the opposite" would be wrong. Or, I think you could at least agree that they hold a minority opinion. They aren't many people who think returning to the gold standard would be a good idea.
Wikipedia says that "Mainstream economists believe that economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing money supply during economic downturns. Following a gold standard would mean that the amount of money would be determined by the supply of gold, and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy in times of economic recession. Such reason is often employed to partially blame the gold standard for the Great Depression, citing that the Federal Reserve couldn't expand credit enough to offset the deflationary forces at work in the market".
Conclusion: Mainstream economists largely see the gold standard as not a good idea. They do, however, see advantages to the "printing of monopoly money" (which they call Quantitative easing).
* It occurred to me. I'm being sarcastic.
a) I didn't say that the person who wrote that article wasn't smart (my point was that economics is a soft science and that you could clearly find one to say just about anything). b) Keynesians (of which you admittedly are) are significantly more likely to greatly inflate the money supply than Austrians and certain Monetists. c) Minority opinions are frequently the correct ones; Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc.. d) The authors of the "The Spirit Level" clearly had minimal knowledge of statistics and the scientific method. I mean, if I ever handed in graphs like that, I would have been laughed off of frigging campus.
Will: The authors of the "The Spirit Level" clearly had minimal knowledge of statistics and the scientific method.
They're both scientists.
Will: Minority opinions are frequently the correct ones.
I disagree. Just because you can point to some that were does not mean that if some nut comes up with a theory it's right... because it's "minority". That's illogical.
Although... the "opinions" (backed up by 30 years of research) presented in "The Spirit Level" are "minority" (simply because not a lot of people are even aware of the book). So I guess the odds that "The Spirit Level" is right and Will Hart is wrong just went up significantly.
a) They don't understand introductory statistics. b) I didn't say that "if some nut comes up with a theory it's right...because it's a minority." That's a lie. But, yes, as Michael Crichton correctly pointed out, most of the great discoveries and advances were a departure from the norm and not a continuation of it. c) I don't care how many years that they researched it. Their methodology was shit and their conclusions pure speculation. Had these idiots looked at other indicators, they would have discovered an entirely different result.
For instance, wd, had these 2 knuckleheads decided to examine alcohol consumption, crime rates, suicide rates, divorce rates, charitable contributions , and volunteerism, they would have found that the lesser equal countries were actually better off than the equal ones.............And I ask you, have you ever taken a statistics course? 'Cause if you had, you would have clearly known that when doing a regression analysis, you always disregard the outlier score (something that has to do with variance). These idiots didn't even know that! LOL
The nuts I was talking about are Libertarians. So, YES, you did say it. I did not lie. And no, I've never taken a course in statistics.
I think the reason this book has (Absolutely HAS to be wrong in your mind) is because it would cause you to have to completely rethink your (largely conservative) worldview.
"Calling someone a "corporate Democrat" or a "corporate Republican" means the politician in question does something for the corporation in question in return for campaign contributions. The term is widely used. You pretending to be unaware of it is just silly."
Yet, you are using it for people who quite often don't do anything in return for campaign contributions. Or for organizations such as the DNC, which has nothing to do with this.
By the way, Feingold gets thousands and thousands of dollars for of campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood (a corporation) and from elsewhere in the abortion industry. In return, he votes in an extreme out-of-touch fashion to increase abortions and to wast precious Federal dollars in corporate welfare handouts to the abortion industry. Russ Feingold does easily meet your definition of corporate Democrat.
A hot topic for what, 40 years? Why the Christ can' t we use common sense peppered with a ample dose of understanding and revert to the SJC's 1972 For Roe -vs- Wade and let it go?
Don't we have more pressing national issues affecting us all?
wd, I said JUST BECAUSE a viewpoint is a minority viewpoint doesn't make it wrong. I never said that a minority viewpoint is DE FACTO the correct one. See the difference?......And if a conservative researcher had said that unequal societies are better due to the above-mentioned indicators AND had used a crappy analysis to boot, I would have taken that researcher to task, too.
You're right, Les. This is one kettle of worms that I probably shouldn't have opened.
dmarks: Yet, you are using it for people who quite often don't do anything in return for campaign contributions.
It also applies to Democrats who approve of legislation in return for campaign cash. If you're a Democrat and believe Democrats should whore themselves out to corporations in return for money (donate to a cause or campaign)... then you're a corporate Democrat.
BTW, the term "corporate Republican" is redundant.
dmarks: Feingold gets thousands and thousands of dollars for of campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood (a corporation)
Russ Feingold votes his conscience. There is no quid pro quo involved. They donate to his campaign because they like the way he votes. He does not modify his votes to get the money.
dmarks: In return, he votes in an extreme out-of-touch fashion...
Russ Feingold isn't a senator anymore, if you were not aware. But when he was he did NOT do anything "in return". He voted his conscience and represented his constituents.
Also, how is his voting "out of touch"? You've said YOURSELF that people are evenly divided (more or less) regarding pro choice versus pro life. Russ Feingold was re-elected a number of times, so clearly the voters liked his position.
"BTW, the term "corporate Republican" is redundant."
It fits Republicans less than Democrats. Remember, most Republicans have opposed TARP and the rest of the bailouts: all unprecedented gifts to corporations from government. Most Democrats support these.
In contrast, there's the adjective "statist", used for those who vote in favor of the ruling elites. Democrats fit this more than Republicans. They tend more to vote for more riches and power and control for the powerful and privileged than Republicans do.
-------------------------
Now, here we get into some typical hypocrisy from WD:
"Russ Feingold votes his conscience. There is no quid pro quo involved. They donate to his campaign because they like the way he votes. He does not modify his votes to get the money."
So, I see, the difference between those of one party getting bribed to vote a certain way and those of another party being bribed to vote a certain way is whether or not there is a (D) or an (R) after their name.
"Russ Feingold isn't a senator anymore, if you were not aware."
Oops. I was wrong on that.
"But when he was he did NOT do anything "in return". He voted his conscience and represented his constituents."
Of course. Because when he was bribed by campaign contributions and voted, you personally agreed with the groups bribing him and how he voted. So you let him off the hook.
dmarks: So, I see, the difference between those of one party getting bribed to vote a certain way and those of another party being bribed to vote a certain way is whether or not there is a (D) or an (R) after their name.
No, you see wrong. We were discussing different types of Democrats. Democrats never have an (R) after their name.
Man, you were WAY wrong on that one. All in a feeble attempt to label me a hypocrite.
Russ Feingold believes in a woman's right to choose and supports leaving these matters in the hands of women and their doctors. He didn't modify his position in response to bribes. If it was just about the money with him he would have went with the pro-choice people. They've got more.
dmarks, you must not vote. How can you if you think they're ALL liars?
Ultimately voters have to make decisions about who they believe. The way you're framing this I'm a hypocrite no matter who I vote for. They all accept campaign contributions.
Which is your weasley way of saying he favors abortion.
Also, in regards to this statement;
"No, you see wrong. We were discussing different types of Democrats. Democrats never have an (R) after their name."
Actually, you yourself introduced Republicans into this conversation in one of your comments. I didn't do it: you did. But it is fine with me if you clobber yourself for mentioning Republicans as you did here.
dmarks: Which is your weasley way of saying he favors abortion.
I would not say Russ Feingold favors abortion... weasley or straight up, because that would be a lie. He believes abortions should be safe, legal, and RARE.
dmarks: Actually, you yourself introduced Republicans into this conversation in one of your comments.
So what if I mentioned Republicans? The fact remains we were discussing Democrats and I criticized Democrats, thus your assertion that I give a pass to some politicians because they have a (D) after their name is false.
That is simply not true for Feingold. He favors abortions at all stages (an extreme view) and also favors wasting tax dollars to encourage them. Which means be wants more of them. That is no wanting it 'rare' at all.
Thankfully as you pointed out he is not in office anymore.
dmarks: That is simply not true for Feingold. He favors abortions at all stages (an extreme view).
It is true: Feingold believes abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.
He does not "favor" abortions at all stages. He does not favor abortions at all. He favors the decision be left to qualified doctors and not unqualified legislators.
I'm in agreement with him on this.
"He does not favor abortions at all stages"
Actually, he does. Feingold very strongly favors abortion. In the other discussion on his views, I linked to a non-partisand site that had extensive examples.
It is simply untrue that he wants abortions "rare". He Wants them increased, and supports governent funding to encourage them, and opposes any efforts that might reduce the number of abortions.
"He favors the decision be left to qualified doctors"
You mean unqualified. Because in the other discussion, you appointed doctors as judge, jury, and executioner to wantonly kill born American citizens on a whim in the name of expanding abortions. Only a jury is qualified to do this. Not a bloodthirsty mercenary with a medical degree.
I'm in agreement with him on this.
Which means you too strongly favor abortions in a rather extreme way.
Also, refer to the other item for a sane, compromise view on abortion. One agreed to by me, John, and Will. One that eschewed extreme. Why not step in from the cold fringes and embrace some sense, and sign on too?
dmarks: Why not step in from the cold fringes and embrace some sense, and sign on too?
Because my position does not lie on the "cold fringes"... you only imagine it does. I told you I agreed with Russ Feingold that abortions should be safe, legal and rare... and you made up a new position for Mr. Feingold (and myself) out of whole cloth.
My position on abortion is sensible and reasonable and I'm not changing it.
Post a Comment