Blue Dogs ...

[jaxx]

Senate Dems balk at ending Bush-era tax rates on wealthy without a deficit deal
By Alexander Bolton - 06/19/12 05:00 AM ET

A growing number of Senate Democrats are signaling they are not prepared to raise taxes on anyone in the weak economy unless Congress approves a grand bargain to reduce the deficit.

At least seven Democratic senators have declined to rule out supporting a temporary extension of the Bush-era income tax rates, breaking with party leaders who have called for letting the rates expire for people earning more than $1 million per year.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233...or-wealthy

1. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
2. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
3. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
4. Jim Webb (D-Va.)
5. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
6. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
7. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

[Brewman_Jax]

(06-19-2012 08:05 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Senate Dems balk at ending Bush-era tax rates on wealthy without a deficit deal
By Alexander Bolton - 06/19/12 05:00 AM ET

A growing number of Senate Democrats are signaling they are not prepared to raise taxes on anyone in the weak economy unless Congress approves a grand bargain to reduce the deficit.

At least seven Democratic senators have declined to rule out supporting a temporary extension of the Bush-era income tax rates, breaking with party leaders who have called for letting the rates expire for people earning more than $1 million per year.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233...or-wealthy

1. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
2. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
3. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
4. Jim Webb (D-Va.)
5. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
6. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
7. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

I've never figured out their obsession with the deficit and the debt, except to use them as an excuse to cut social spending. Not being an economist or studied in economics, I don't know how it affects the 99%.

[sandnsea]

The money that FICA loaned to the federal budget, the trillions of dollars in the trust fund, has to be paid back in the form of social security checks. Some day in the next 5-10 years, there won't be more FICA coming in than going out. If there isn't money in the federal budget to cover that, there will either be big cuts or tax hikes.

The other problem is interest. When the government is borrowing money, there is less for business to borrow. As we saw during the credit crunch, most businesses operate on a revolving bank note. When the credit dries up, because government(s) are using it all, interest rates go up and businesses suffer. The interest on the debt alone could add another $1.3 trillion to the debt, according to the CBO, making most of our new debt... interest.

The debt & deficit are serious problems. Very serious. Ironically, the military is killing us the same way it killed the Soviet Union, and the St Ronnie worshippers who praise him for crashing the economy of the Soviet Union, don't see they're doing the same thing to us.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/02/news/eco.../index.htm

[KonaKane]

With Democrats like these....

[jaxx]

(06-19-2012 11:17 AM)KonaKane Wrote:  With Democrats like these....

Yep.

[suzie]

(06-19-2012 11:17 AM)KonaKane Wrote:  With Democrats like these....

Most of these senators are running for re-election or their seats are up for election.

Would you really rather have Republicans in these seats?

[KonaKane]

(06-20-2012 05:31 AM)suzie Wrote:  Most of these senators are running for re-election or their seats are up for election.

Would you really rather have Republicans in these seats?

I'd rather have real Democrats in those seats.


It seems every discussion about Blue Dogs devolves to this "well this is the best you're ever gonna get so shut up" argument, huh suzie?

[OptimistesMaddie]

(06-20-2012 05:31 AM)suzie Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 11:17 AM)KonaKane Wrote:  With Democrats like these....

Most of these senators are running for re-election or their seats are up for election.

Would you really rather have Republicans in these seats?

however; these Democratic Senators are the main reason the HCR bill is in trouble, they damaged the bill. Time and time again they have managed to screw up Democratic legislation by siding with the Republicans. We can pull their voting records up and validate that information.

What I want is to have them replaced with more Progressive Democratic Senators.

[suzie]

(06-20-2012 04:14 PM)OptimistesMaddie Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 05:31 AM)suzie Wrote:  Most of these senators are running for re-election or their seats are up for election.

Would you really rather have Republicans in these seats?

however; these Democratic Senators are the main reason the HCR bill is in trouble, they damaged the bill. Time and time again they have managed to screw up Democratic legislation by siding with the Republicans. We can pull their voting records up and validate that information.

What I want is to have them replaced with more Progressive Democratic Senators.

Is Chuck Schumer in the list of people you want gone? Because he's been the Senator from Wall Street, anti-regulation. And last I looked, the real problem for Barack Obama is still the fall-out from Wall Street and the financial shenanigans of of the past.

How about getting Joe Biden off the Democratic ticket? After all, Joe was mainly responsible for the draconian Bankruptcy Law, which has greatly harmed those in the middle and lower classes during the housing crisis and the Recession.

What I see is that constantly talking down Democrats that don't meet whatever standards some people have basically falls into the Republican meme that "they're all the same" and gets more Republicans elected.

Maybe some of you are pining for a Republican Senate and House. I'm not.

[KonaKane]

(06-20-2012 04:36 PM)suzie Wrote:  Is Chuck Schumer in the list of people you want gone? Because he's been the Senator from Wall Street, anti-regulation. And last I looked, the real problem for Barack Obama is still the fall-out from Wall Street and the financial shenanigans of of the past.
.......

Maybe some of you are pining for a Republican Senate and House. I'm not.

Ya know Suz, I'm getting awfully tired of having the "well do you prefer Republicans then?" finger wagged in my face every time I lodge a complaint about the Blue Dogs. You're not winning them any more support, you are not making your case by doing so. Desiring more progressive Democrats in office is simply not equivalent to preferring a tyranny by the GOP. No matter what annoying, dramatic get-in-line histrionics you wish to employ.

You might consider a different approach.

[Treestar]

(06-20-2012 05:21 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 04:36 PM)suzie Wrote:  Is Chuck Schumer in the list of people you want gone? Because he's been the Senator from Wall Street, anti-regulation. And last I looked, the real problem for Barack Obama is still the fall-out from Wall Street and the financial shenanigans of of the past.
.......

Maybe some of you are pining for a Republican Senate and House. I'm not.

Ya know Suz, I'm getting awfully tired of having the "well do you prefer Republicans then?" finger wagged in my face every time I lodge a complaint about the Blue Dogs. You're not winning them any more support, you are not making your case by doing so. Desiring more progressive Democrats in office is simply not equivalent to preferring a tyranny by the GOP. No matter what annoying, dramatic get-in-line histrionics you wish to employ.

You might consider a different approach.

But you're not facing the fact that Republicans are all you will get in those districts. "Real Democrats" would be harder to get in those districts. Complain about them but vote for them is what I would do in those districts. I might even vote for them in the primary if I knew the district would never elect the more liberal Democrats.

Facing facts - there a lots of conservatives in this country and in the states they come from, those individuals are practically communists. I don't know that there is an immediate solution to this problem.

[KonaKane]

(06-21-2012 02:43 PM)Treestar Wrote:  But you're not facing the fact that Republicans are all you will get in those districts. "Real Democrats" would be harder to get in those districts. Complain about them but vote for them is what I would do in those districts. I might even vote for them in the primary if I knew the district would never elect the more liberal Democrats.

Facing facts - there a lots of conservatives in this country and in the states they come from, those individuals are practically communists. I don't know that there is an immediate solution to this problem.

There is no "immediate" solution to any problem. Changing opinions in Red regions will take time and a ton of intensified work. But, I think it's worth it in order to get more Progressive Democrats from those areas.

Are you really saying it's not worth the effort?

[Treestar]

(06-21-2012 03:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-21-2012 02:43 PM)Treestar Wrote:  But you're not facing the fact that Republicans are all you will get in those districts. "Real Democrats" would be harder to get in those districts. Complain about them but vote for them is what I would do in those districts. I might even vote for them in the primary if I knew the district would never elect the more liberal Democrats.

Facing facts - there a lots of conservatives in this country and in the states they come from, those individuals are practically communists. I don't know that there is an immediate solution to this problem.

There is no "immediate" solution to any problem. Changing opinions in Red regions will take time and a ton of intensified work. But, I think it's worth it in order to get more Progressive Democrats from those areas.

Are you really saying it's not worth the effort?

I didn't say that.

But hell these people think the likes of Ben Nelson are Marxists. There's a long way to go.

[KonaKane]

(06-22-2012 06:58 PM)Treestar Wrote:  I didn't say that.

But hell these people think the likes of Ben Nelson are Marxists. There's a long way to go.

Anybody who would call Ben Nelson a Marxist clearly isn't playing with all their marbles.

[suzie]

(06-22-2012 07:00 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 06:58 PM)Treestar Wrote:  I didn't say that.

But hell these people think the likes of Ben Nelson are Marxists. There's a long way to go.

Anybody who would call Ben Nelson a Marxist clearly isn't playing with all their marbles.

Saying negative stuff about voters, I guess that's as close we'll ever get to any suggestion from you on how to change minds in Red States.

[KonaKane]

(06-23-2012 11:32 AM)suzie Wrote:  Saying negative stuff about voters, I guess that's as close we'll ever get to any suggestion from you on how to change minds in Red States.

So on top of never bothering to change a thing in the Red regions, we should never bother to correct ridiculously cartoonish mischaracterizations of Democrats?

Wow. That's some mad ambition you got goin' there.

[suzie]

(06-23-2012 12:01 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-23-2012 11:32 AM)suzie Wrote:  Saying negative stuff about voters, I guess that's as close we'll ever get to any suggestion from you on how to change minds in Red States.

So on top of never bothering to change a thing in the Red regions, we should never bother to correct ridiculously cartoonish mischaracterizations of Democrats?

Wow. That's some mad ambition you got goin' there.

Ridiculing groups of voters as "crazy" will change their minds? Gosh, who knew?

But, just repeating a mantra, "we need to make the Red States more 'progressive'," will change things? Really?

Because I'm still waiting for ONE concrete suggestion from you on how to change Red State voters--before the next election.


Oh, and I'll be supporting Bill Nelson with no qualms--he's a very good Senator on some issues that I consider VITAL--like Energy and Coastal Environment.

But also because we Democrats in Florida have had 2 electoral experiences with those who listened to the so-called "progressives" who believe that candidates like Alex Sink or Al Gore are just not good enough.

[KonaKane]

(06-24-2012 07:22 AM)suzie Wrote:  Ridiculing groups of voters as "crazy" will change their minds? Gosh, who knew?

You want me to lie about it? Is it NOT crazy to call Ben Nelson a Marxist? Seriously?

Quote:But, just repeating a mantra, "we need to make the Red States more 'progressive'," will change things? Really?

Because I'm still waiting for ONE concrete suggestion from you on how to change Red State voters--before the next election.

No, you're "waiting" for no such thing. You've been given several already, in more than one thread. You're holding your hands over your ears and screaming for answers. Something disturbingly wrong with that, I think.

Quote:Oh, and I'll be supporting Bill Nelson with no qualms--he's a very good Senator on some issues that I consider VITAL--like Energy and Coastal Environment.

But I thought he is a Marxist? Or at the very least, you bristle at criticism brought against people who call him a Marxist. Make up your mind please.

[Treestar]

(06-22-2012 07:00 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 06:58 PM)Treestar Wrote:  I didn't say that.

But hell these people think the likes of Ben Nelson are Marxists. There's a long way to go.

Anybody who would call Ben Nelson a Marxist clearly isn't playing with all their marbles.

They get to vote and will. Republicans are at least better than that. The ones who think Rmoney is a Marxist will still vote for him.

[sandnsea]

(06-20-2012 04:36 PM)suzie Wrote:  Is Chuck Schumer in the list of people you want gone? Because he's been the Senator from Wall Street, anti-regulation. And last I looked, the real problem for Barack Obama is still the fall-out from Wall Street and the financial shenanigans of of the past.

How about getting Joe Biden off the Democratic ticket? After all, Joe was mainly responsible for the draconian Bankruptcy Law, which has greatly harmed those in the middle and lower classes during the housing crisis and the Recession.

What I see is that constantly talking down Democrats that don't meet whatever standards some people have basically falls into the Republican meme that "they're all the same" and gets more Republicans elected.

Maybe some of you are pining for a Republican Senate and House. I'm not.

Very valid point. It is like my own Senators cowering before the logging industry. Wyden has been a horrific ass on health care. They all have their points where they break from what's really useful for working people. I do think the Blue Dogs are guilty of screwing up legislation before they vote for it, which typically isn't true of some of the other Dems. I think we saw this play out somewhat in the 2008 primary - the Hillary voters. There's a reason all those eastern red state Dems voted for her over Obama. Pockets of this country just have different cultural views, different life experiences. The people they elect aren't going to change until they do. I don't understand why that's so hard for educated progressives to figure out.

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-20-2012 05:49 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  ... I think we saw this play out somewhat in the 2008 primary - the Hillary voters. There's a reason all those eastern red state Dems voted for her over Obama. ...

Point of order - I don't see these "eastern red states" (not sure what that is even) that voted for Hillary. Can you clarify what you were trying to say there?

[Born_A_Truman]

1. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
2. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
3. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
4. Jim Webb (D-Va.)
5. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
6. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
7. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

I know McCaskill is in a fight for her life in MO. POTUS lost MO narrowly in 2008 and McCaskill may not be re-elected. Montana is another GOP state even with a Democratic governor. Lots of pressure.

[jaxx]

Nobody said they weren't voting Democratic Party suzie. The idea that the 7 are out there broadcasting they won't stand with the party is the problem. We need the seats, we also need the votes that go with the seats.....every time. What we really need is strong Democrats in those seats, but that is a primary issue and we're past that. The tired old "Would you really rather have Republicans in these seats? " has lost it's meaning when the seat votes against the Democrats.

[suzie]

(06-20-2012 07:40 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Nobody said they weren't voting Democratic Party suzie. The idea that the 7 are out there broadcasting they won't stand with the party is the problem. We need the seats, we also need the votes that go with the seats.....every time. What we really need is strong Democrats in those seats, but that is a primary issue and we're past that. The tired old "Would you really rather have Republicans in these seats? " has lost it's meaning when the seat votes against the Democrats.

"We need strong Democrats in those seats." And how do you propose to get them?

By telling us in Florida that voting with party 92% of the time is okay in blue states like Washington, Ohio, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, but OMIGOD IT'S JUST HORRENDOUS if our Democratic senator in Florida, a purple state, votes with party 92%.

Because if you're from a purple state or a red state, you must vote with Party "every time." What I think has lost its meaning is this constant focus on Blue Dogs.

VOTES WITH PARTY

Bill Nelson - votes with party 92%

Claire McCaskill - votes with party 83%

Ben Nelson - votes with party 82%

Jim Webb - votes with party 89%

Mark Pryor - votes with party 88%

Jon Tester - votes with party 90%

Joe Manchin - votes with party 82%



Mark Begich - votes with party 89%

Sherrod Brown - votes with party 92%

Mark Begich - votes with party 89%

Mark Udall - votes with party 91%

Maria Cantwell - votes with party 92%

Patti Murray - votes with party 93%

Ami Klobuchar - votes with party 90%

Debbie Stabenow - votes with party 92%

Michael Bennett - votes with party 92%

Thomas Carper - votes with party 92%

Al Franken - votes with party 94%

[jaxx]

(06-20-2012 03:28 PM)suzie Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 07:40 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Nobody said they weren't voting Democratic Party suzie. The idea that the 7 are out there broadcasting they won't stand with the party is the problem. We need the seats, we also need the votes that go with the seats.....every time. What we really need is strong Democrats in those seats, but that is a primary issue and we're past that. The tired old "Would you really rather have Republicans in these seats? " has lost it's meaning when the seat votes against the Democrats.

"We need strong Democrats in those seats." And how do you propose to get them?

By telling us in Florida that voting with party 92% of the time is okay in blue states like Washington, Ohio, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, but OMIGOD IT'S JUST HORRENDOUS if our Democratic senator in Florida, a purple state, votes with party 92%.

Because if you're from a purple state or a red state, you must vote with Party "every time." What I think has lost its meaning is this constant focus on Blue Dogs.

I'm in no mood to give you another thread to stick up for the blue dogs. The constant focus is on them because they won't hold the line. Florida isn't the only state in the country and your jumping to spin the yarns is tiresome.

[suzie]

(06-20-2012 04:38 PM)jaxx Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 03:28 PM)suzie Wrote:  "We need strong Democrats in those seats." And how do you propose to get them?

By telling us in Florida that voting with party 92% of the time is okay in blue states like Washington, Ohio, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, but OMIGOD IT'S JUST HORRENDOUS if our Democratic senator in Florida, a purple state, votes with party 92%.

Because if you're from a purple state or a red state, you must vote with Party "every time." What I think has lost its meaning is this constant focus on Blue Dogs.

I'm in no mood to give you another thread to stick up for the blue dogs. The constant focus is on them because they won't hold the line. Florida isn't the only state in the country and your jumping to spin the yarns is tiresome.

What yarns, jaxx?

Show me where Bill Nelson didn't vote for the stimulus or health care.

If you don't like the fact that he did, take him off the list above. But this constant idea that if you're a Senator from a Red State, there's some high standard whichyou must meet to be acceptable.

BUT iF YOU"RE FROM A BLUE STATE, whey there's a completely different standard. That's a yarn.

[jaxx]

(06-20-2012 04:48 PM)suzie Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 04:38 PM)jaxx Wrote:  I'm in no mood to give you another thread to stick up for the blue dogs. The constant focus is on them because they won't hold the line. Florida isn't the only state in the country and your jumping to spin the yarns is tiresome.

What yarns, jaxx?

Show me where Bill Nelson didn't vote for the stimulus or health care.

If you don't like the fact that he did, take him off the list above. But this constant idea that if you're a Senator from a Red State, there's some high standard whichyou must meet to be acceptable.

BUT iF YOU"RE FROM A BLUE STATE, whey there's a completely different standard. That's a yarn.

Well you just keep voting for the blue dogs in the primaries and keep making excuses for why they just can't be expected to vote with the party. That seems to be the low expectation of the year.

[Velleity]

Of course it would be better to have more liberal Democrats but it's better to have a McCaskell or a Webb than, say, another Eric Cantor. At least the more conservative Democrats will negotiate and succumb at least some of the time to reason.

[sandnsea]

The Senators in those states can't change their votes until the people in those states change their minds, and in order to do that they need some organization in there giving them the information that will change their minds.

And respect. Because the second you ridicule their beliefs and their lifestyles, you've lost any opportunity to change their minds. Some of them are lost beyond all hope, but some just have a few complaints, like a crappy job and a mountain of regulations and requirements to wade through in order to get a better one. Only to have that job moved down the food chain in 5 years, or lost overseas.

[suzie]

So Sherrod Brown is not a "real Democrat", Kona?

[suzie]

92% Votes with Party is good enough if you're in Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Washington, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Jaxx?

But if you're from Florida, that equals "doesn't vote with party."

Come on.

[jaxx]

(06-20-2012 04:58 PM)suzie Wrote:  92% Votes with Party is good enough if you're in Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Washington, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Jaxx?

But if you're from Florida, that equals "doesn't vote with party."

Come on.

I choose not to be bored by the same old crap as the last time someone dared to mention the blue dogs. I'm done.

[suzie]

I'm sorry if holding senators from other places to the same standard is "crap."

Bill Nelson has been outstanding on holding the line on coastal oil drilling and that's a pretty big environmental deal.

Is that suddenly not "progressive"?

[KonaKane]

(06-20-2012 05:28 PM)suzie Wrote:  I'm sorry if holding senators from other places to the same standard is "crap."

Bill Nelson has been outstanding on holding the line on coastal oil drilling and that's a pretty big environmental deal.

Is that suddenly not "progressive"?

Anyone who could actually describe Bill Nelson as a "progressive" probably needs a nice long vacation.

[sandnsea]

(06-20-2012 05:54 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 05:28 PM)suzie Wrote:  I'm sorry if holding senators from other places to the same standard is "crap."

Bill Nelson has been outstanding on holding the line on coastal oil drilling and that's a pretty big environmental deal.

Is that suddenly not "progressive"?

Anyone who could actually describe Bill Nelson as a "progressive" probably needs a nice long vacation.

She didn't describe Bill Nelson as progressive. She described his work against oil drilling as progressive.

You have a terrible habit of twisting people's words and then picking a fight based on what you stuck in their mouth. Stop It.

[KonaKane]

(06-20-2012 06:00 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  She didn't describe Bill Nelson as progressive. She described his work against oil drilling as progressive.

You have a terrible habit of twisting people's words and then picking a fight based on what you stuck in their mouth. Stop It.

Was that an order? Perhaps you should take a long, deep breath and get the fuck over yourself, ya think?

[sandnsea]

(06-20-2012 06:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 06:00 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  She didn't describe Bill Nelson as progressive. She described his work against oil drilling as progressive.

You have a terrible habit of twisting people's words and then picking a fight based on what you stuck in their mouth. Stop It.

Was that an order? Perhaps you should take a long, deep breath and get the fuck over yourself, ya think?

Take it any way ya' want - but I'm not the only one who is fucking sick of it - just the only one who will tell YOU to get the fuck over yourself - in a big goddamn way. You owe Suz an apology.

[KonaKane]

(06-20-2012 06:40 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Take it any way ya' want - but I'm not the only one who is fucking sick of it - just the only one who will tell YOU to get the fuck over yourself - in a big goddamn way. You owe Suz an apology.

Rather than dispense tyrannical, ego-dripping orders, how about you entertain this idea....you ignore my posts, I'll ignore yours. There. Nice and fair, and will solve the problem.

Or would you rather just continue slathering this place with your abrasive, argumentative horse shit day in day out?

[jaxx]

(06-20-2012 06:40 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 06:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Was that an order? Perhaps you should take a long, deep breath and get the fuck over yourself, ya think?

Take it any way ya' want - but I'm not the only one who is fucking sick of it - just the only one who will tell YOU to get the fuck over yourself - in a big goddamn way. You owe Suz an apology.

Look, you came from another thread where you got into a fight and here it goes again. Take a breather.

[sandnsea]

(06-20-2012 06:45 PM)jaxx Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 06:40 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Take it any way ya' want - but I'm not the only one who is fucking sick of it - just the only one who will tell YOU to get the fuck over yourself - in a big goddamn way. You owe Suz an apology.

Look, you came from another thread where you got into a fight and here it goes again. Take a breather.

Uh no - I came from another thread where that jackass started up his idiotic shit. He can take a fucking braether.

"Another thread" - actually, thread after thread after thread after thread.

[jaxx]

(06-20-2012 07:26 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 06:45 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Look, you came from another thread where you got into a fight and here it goes again. Take a breather.

Uh no - I came from another thread where that jackass started up his idiotic shit. He can take a fucking braether.

"Another thread" - actually, thread after thread after thread after thread.

Please cease and desist.

[KonaKane]

An enlightening article about all the damage the Blue Dogs do to the Democratic cause. A must read, if you have the time....

http://mikeconrad1.wordpress.com/2012/06...dem-myths/

[jaxx]

(06-20-2012 09:51 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  An enlightening article about all the damage the Blue Dogs do to the Democratic cause. A must read, if you have the time....

http://mikeconrad1.wordpress.com/2012/06...dem-myths/

Very interesting article. Change forces change and we need to be ready with the best candidates. Like he said, this isn't 1995 anymore.

[JeffR]

I think Suzie's comments about Blue Dogs are generally spot on, and if you're a Red State voter, you probably realize she's right. I personally might not like it at all (and I don't) but I think she's she's right.

If you were a voter in the Georgia 12th, for example, as I am, you would have two choices: John Barrow, a Blue Dog (and a notoriously maddening one, IMHO), or whatever soulless right wing talking point dispenser the Republicans put up against him.

There are no other choices in such a district. It's "them" or it's someone mostly but not entirely aligned with "us" - anyone who would agonize over which choice is the better one is not really being serious.

One cycle after my vote for Barrow helped him win his first term by what I believe was the narrowest victory margin in a Congressional race in the country that time around, I wrote in Regina Thomas, the more progressive Democrat who twice challenged Barrow for the nomination, unsuccessfully. I felt great for a few minutes after doing so. Hooray for me...

If enough people had made the same stupid mistake I did, a Republican might be occupying that seat right now. And nobody would be parsing that Republican's voting record to find out how often he voted with the Democrats, because he wouldn't have done so even once.

Blue Dogs suck. Republicans suck worse. That's the calculus in the Georgia 12th, and the same calculus pertains in many other districts in many other states. You don't have to like it (and you shouldn't) but you better get your head around it.

[KonaKane]

Jeff I don't think anyone is actually disputing that. What I'm saying is, that rather than making it a black and white choice forever and ever of "well since I don't want a repug, I'll go with the Blue Dog and hold my nose" we can shift it up and say "let's draft more Progressive Democrats.

Additionally, let's make the Progressive case in Red regions through an active public dialogue, and start changing some minds so that there is support for the new rung of Progressive candidates.

I honestly do not see what is wrong with that. Apparently some Democrats do, and ironically want to cling to the status quo almost like a....dare I say ....conservative.

[jaxx]

Well I guess it'll have to be this way. My district rep is a teabagger/red dog, but he was voted in and so I'm going to like everything he does because he's the best we can get and he voted a couple times against the GOP. I might have to vote for Willard too because my rep likes him and he's the best of the Klown Kar candidates for pete's sake. Gawd knows I wouldn't want to rock the boat and vote for Obama again, even if he has the country's best interests in mind. It's all about letting me stay under my bed and not wanting anything more than the wingers are willing to give....which is nothing. But I've learned to settle.

Where did I put that x-acto knife?

[KonaKane]

(06-21-2012 10:20 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Well I guess it'll have to be this way. My district rep is a teabagger/red dog, but he was voted in and so I'm going to like everything he does because he's the best we can get and he voted a couple times against the GOP. I might have to vote for Willard too because my rep likes him and he's the best of the Klown Kar candidates for pete's sake. Gawd knows I wouldn't want to rock the boat and vote for Obama again, even if he has the country's best interests in mind. It's all about letting me stay under my bed and not wanting anything more than the wingers are willing to give....which is nothing. But I've learned to settle.

Where did I put that x-acto knife?

Couldn't have said it better. Sometimes settling is a death sentence.

[suzie]

Just wondering, oh Great and Wise Kona, what are your suggestions for Red State Democrats "EFFORTS" to achieve your oh-so-easily-achieved goal of changing hearts and minds to elect the kinds of acceptable to Kona and Jaxx Democrat--whom I assume would vote with Party at not just at equal but at higher percentage levels than Blue Staters?

And, maybe you could tell us what we should do in national elections--since you and Jaxx seem to take exception to the kind of support that people in my community show for Obama, because we also try to get Bill Nelson re-elected.

So, I would certainly be glad to take your insightful suggestions back to those of us who are obviously among the Unenlightened. We have thought that raising all the money to open an Obama campaign office in 2008 in a county so conservative and with so small a Democratic population that the Campaign wouldn't pay for an office--was a pretty good deal. We thought that phone banking, knocking on doors, driving around an "Obama Van" that we purchased and renovated to do mobile voter registration was a fairly good thing. So much so that this time around, we raised the money quicker and opened the office in June.

But, obviously, from Jaxx's sarcasm and your agreement that we must not be good enough Obama supporters, we must certainly be doing something awfully, terribly, horribly wrong.

Perhaps you can instruct me on what we could do differently than putting up our own time and money and getting other volunteers to do so--in order to be acceptable to the REAL DEMOCRATS like you!!!!! I'll just be glad to tell our people that they're doing it all wrong!

And maybe you and Jaxx can determine what level of Voting with Party a Democratic Senator has to have to be acceptable to REAL DEMOCRATS, because 92% is, according to you and Jaxx, just voting a few times with Democrats. So, what is the REAL DEMOCRAT %?

[KonaKane]

It seems to me, suzie, that I've already answered those questions in the last Blue Dog apologia thread you posted. I'm not sure that repeating myself would make a dent, would it?

But hey, I'm ever hopeful. I challenge you to read this article, and roll it over in your mind. I'd also like to read your comments about it, if you have any.

http://mikeconrad1.wordpress.com/2012/06...dem-myths/

[suzie]

My comments about the article--what a bunch of platitudinous silliness.

But, I have the same question that I asked above, after reading Conrad's nonsensical rambling rant about the evils of Blue Dogs.

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES WITH PARTY THAT IN YOUR "PROGRESSIVE" INFALLIBILITY, YOU FIND ACCEPTABLE?

Because your Mr. Conrad references the Democrats that he finds as wonderful examples--first among them, Sherrod. Who votes with party 92%.

The hated Bill Nelson, one of the EVIL BLUE DOGS about whom this thread was started, votes with Party 92%. Stabenow, one of Conrad's list of wonderfuls, Votes with Party at 92%--THE SAME AS THE EVIL Bill Nelson, while another of the wonderfuls, Harkin, votes party at 93%.

What I think about the article is that reading it was a bigger waste of time than playing a Sporcle quiz. Half the people Conrad talks about lost elections some time ago. His suggestions for winning elections are about the same as yours. ZERO. Although I do love the explanation that people like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin are candidates the Party can really get behind. Except that where it counts, in the polls, they are BEHIND. I don't know much about Baldwin, but I've been impressed with Warren. However, according to your constant projections and those of Conrad, she should be ahead by double digits in Blue Massachusetts and she's behind.

What I think about people like you and Mike Conrad is that you've never run for office, never put your money and time on the line. What strikes me in your fantasies about electoral politics is that you're just unwilling to accept that some people are great candidates. And some are just not. I saw George McGovern in person when I was young. I was for George McGovern, but standing in the back of the crowd, I thought, "Omigod, we're going to lose this badly." Because he's a great man, a genuine American hero, an honorable senator, and a TERRIBLE candidate.

But, I'm still waiting for those real world suggestions on how to get the kind of candidates that you and Mike Conrad are JUST SURE WILL WIN, actually elected. So far, I haven't seen any from either of you. Just platitudes about how OTHER PEOPLE should put up THEIR AFTER TAX MONEY and THEIR TIME and lose.

I've watched some of my friends do that and ya' know what, Kona, it sucks.

Even more than being insulted by you because I DARE to disagree with you.

[KonaKane]

Don't turn this upside down now....you started with the personal attacks because I dared to question the wisdom of retaining the Blue Dogs as opposed to pushing for more progressives. You're projecting, in a big way.

So outside of a snide and sweeping dismissal of the article, what specifics about that view rubbed you the wrong way? You keep parroting about the amount of time the Blues vote with the President, but oddly ignore the number of times they have collectively been a ball and chain on him. Moreover, you've not a word to say when they obstruct the Democratic agenda on very important votes, about extremely important issues.

For instance, you are silent on the nine Blues who sides with the GOP and hindered Health Care reform - remember Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson & Joe Lieberman (now an indie)? Those are your 90 percenters. Is there a reason we should be satisfied with that statistics when they are capable and amenable to obstructionism on vital issues?

Or how about the nagging budget issues? The whole Balanced Budget thing is not only a right wing GOP banner, but very enlightened economists have come out in droves to show how it's not only a bad idea but it is likely unconstitutional. Yet here come those sacred Blue Dogs of yours, siding once again with the Elephants because they are willing to be frightened by the faux budget canard.

My point is simply this: why is it not a good idea to start pushing public opinion in the Red regions more to the Democratic left? Why is that not good work, and worthy of thereby electing more Progressive Democrats in those areas? You seem to be personally affronted by the very notion of it.

Now, instead of devolving to cheap personal attacks and snide diversions, can you make a dispassionate, cogent case to retain the Blue Dog drag on this party - instead of actively pursuing a more Progressive Left momentum?

[suzie]

I've not seen a suggestion from you, Kona, on how to actually ELECT those whom you would choose to have in office--in Red States.

"Crazy" would seem to be your continued insistence that somehow a miracle will happen and people you consider to have "lost their marbles" will vote for someone who meets your personal standards for a candidate.

That any Democrat ever gets elected from Nebraska amazes me--and I've lived in the state. But I'll just assume that you're hoping for a Republican victory there over Bob Kerrey, because he's absolutely the kind of Democrat that you find intolerable.

[KonaKane]

Yes you have, actually, in other threads that we've beat up on your ideological marriage to southern conservative Democratic politics. You put your hands over your ears and scream for answers, with absolutely zero intent to grok any because you see any attempt to change politics in Red regions as a personal affront.

Seriously.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the italicized half of our banner on top of this site means?

[KonaKane]

In order for the myth of Blue Dog immutability to be properly deconstructed, you have to attack one of it's strongest planks: the notion that the way for a Democrat to win in Red territory is to be conservative enough. If they lose, they will assume they weren't conservative enough and run even more conservatively next time. Obviously, that dynamic runs completely counter to the Democratic idea, because it will eventually create more Republicans than Democrats.

Otherwise known as "Tack Right" methodology, it leaves any hope of the area actually going Blue, in the dust. It is also sustained by the sentiment that "this is the best we could hope for"; creating a resignation-minded sense of survival rather than active battle to push the other way.

Especially tragic when it really isn't that hard to push the other way, since Progressive candidates are already surfacing.

Take Cecil Bothwell, for instance.

Bothwell, widely liked and enthusiastically supported by progressive Democrats and Blue America, was warming up to challenge one of the most loathsome of the Blue Dogs, Heath Shuler. In fact, polls were showing him beating the pants off Shuler in the primaries. Shuler, a bigot and religious fanatic who voted with Republicans against equality for women and against equality for the LGBT community, decided to abandon another fight for the same office and instead go for the mantle of sleazy lobbyist. With a ProgressivePunch score of 38.55, that translated to a roughly 60% voting record with Boehner and Cantor. Shuler was off to the Old GOP Appeaser's Home, which meant he needed to choose a successor to put Bothwell in his place. That successor would be Hayden Rogers, another conservative lackey, prone to do his job as a Blue Dog abetting the GOP. So what's wrong with this picture?

2010 saw a very welcome, and shocking, slap back in the Red regions against the Blue Dogs. More than half of them were either defeated at the polls or forced into retirement rather than be beaten. The dynamic has not weakened, and some polls among Democrats have even shown an uptick in the direction. Conditions are ripe for a Bothwell victory.

No sooner was that obvious than the predictable dowery delivery to Rogers as the preordained Blue Dog King of the contest. While Bothwell was holding Family Night fundraisers with free pizza and suggested donations of $15, Rogers was hosting a $2,500 a plate steak dinner in the state capitol. More support flowed in from the Blue Dog caucus, because it became apparent that the local Democratic leadership preferred a potential Rogers loss to a Bothwell win.

Let me repeat that for the incredulous. The conservative Democrats would rather lose to the GOP than risk a Progressive Democratic win.

So, there it is. It's no longer a question of running more Progressive Democrats in Red territory being a sane thing. It is. There is even public support for it. What's lacking is the political will among the Democratic movers and shakers in Red land.

What's more lacking is the enthusiasm among rank and file Democratic voters in Red America, to change the color of the land when the physics are finally making it possible.

[Willinois]

(06-24-2012 06:17 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Let me repeat that for the incredulous. The conservative Democrats would rather lose to the GOP than risk a Progressive Democratic win.

I've seen this far too often even in Illinois. Conservative party leaders sat on their hands rather than help a liberal Democrat get elected mayor in my town. It happens all the time.

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 03:26 AM)Willinois Wrote:  I've seen this far too often even in Illinois. Conservative party leaders sat on their hands rather than help a liberal Democrat get elected mayor in my town. It happens all the time.

I do not doubt it, and it's a jaw dropping disgrace.

Correcting THIS is the first step in turning the Red to Blue.

[Velleity]

(06-24-2012 06:17 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  In order for the myth of Blue Dog immutability to be properly deconstructed, you have to attack one of it's strongest planks: the notion that the way for a Democrat to win in Red territory is to be conservative enough. If they lose, they will assume they weren't conservative enough and run even more conservatively next time. Obviously, that dynamic runs completely counter to the Democratic idea, because it will eventually create more Republicans than Democrats.

Otherwise known as "Tack Right" methodology, it leaves any hope of the area actually going Blue, in the dust. It is also sustained by the sentiment that "this is the best we could hope for"; creating a resignation-minded sense of survival rather than active battle to push the other way.

Especially tragic when it really isn't that hard to push the other way, since Progressive candidates are already surfacing.

Take Cecil Bothwell, for instance.

Bothwell, widely liked and enthusiastically supported by progressive Democrats and Blue America, was warming up to challenge one of the most loathsome of the Blue Dogs, Heath Shuler. In fact, polls were showing him beating the pants off Shuler in the primaries. Shuler, a bigot and religious fanatic who voted with Republicans against equality for women and against equality for the LGBT community, decided to abandon another fight for the same office and instead go for the mantle of sleazy lobbyist. With a ProgressivePunch score of 38.55, that translated to a roughly 60% voting record with Boehner and Cantor. Shuler was off to the Old GOP Appeaser's Home, which meant he needed to choose a successor to put Bothwell in his place. That successor would be Hayden Rogers, another conservative lackey, prone to do his job as a Blue Dog abetting the GOP. So what's wrong with this picture?

2010 saw a very welcome, and shocking, slap back in the Red regions against the Blue Dogs. More than half of them were either defeated at the polls or forced into retirement rather than be beaten. The dynamic has not weakened, and some polls among Democrats have even shown an uptick in the direction. Conditions are ripe for a Bothwell victory.

No sooner was that obvious than the predictable dowery delivery to Rogers as the preordained Blue Dog King of the contest. While Bothwell was holding Family Night fundraisers with free pizza and suggested donations of $15, Rogers was hosting a $2,500 a plate steak dinner in the state capitol. More support flowed in from the Blue Dog caucus, because it became apparent that the local Democratic leadership preferred a potential Rogers loss to a Bothwell win.

Let me repeat that for the incredulous. The conservative Democrats would rather lose to the GOP than risk a Progressive Democratic win.

So, there it is. It's no longer a question of running more Progressive Democrats in Red territory being a sane thing. It is. There is even public support for it. What's lacking is the political will among the Democratic movers and shakers in Red land.

What's more lacking is the enthusiasm among rank and file Democratic voters in Red America, to change the color of the land when the physics are finally making it possible.

Our parties are supposed to be coalition parties. The fact that the Republican Party isn't a coalition in the same sense that the Democratic Party is a coalition means what? It means that we shouldn't be a coalition either?

I think that's a mistake. The pendulum will swing. If worse comes to worst, Republicans will win and then discredit themselves. They aren't fit to govern so the idea that we need to emulate them with ideological purity is, at least in my mind, problematic.

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 11:13 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I think that's a mistake. The pendulum will swing. If worse comes to worst, Republicans will win and then discredit themselves. ....

Yeah yeah, we've been telling ourselves that since Reagan. How's it workin for for ya?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 11:28 AM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 11:13 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I think that's a mistake. The pendulum will swing. If worse comes to worst, Republicans will win and then discredit themselves. ....

Yeah yeah, we've been telling ourselves that since Reagan. How's it workin for for ya?

Better, apparently, than it has worked out for you.

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 11:35 AM)Velleity Wrote:  Better, apparently, than it has worked out for you.

Go see how many Democrats agree with that "wait wait, it will turn around so let's not do anything to upset the apple cart" thingy.

Hint: Don't order too much food and drink, the turnout could be light.


And BTW, speaking of the coalition 'tude.... how many liberal Republicans have you seen making news over the past 30 years?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 11:54 AM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 11:35 AM)Velleity Wrote:  Better, apparently, than it has worked out for you.

Go see how many Democrats agree with that "wait wait, it will turn around so let's not do anything to upset the apple cart" thingy.

Hint: Don't order too much food and drink, the turnout could be light.


And BTW, speaking of the coalition 'tude.... how many liberal Republicans have you seen making news over the past 30 years?

I didn't say "wait, wait, it will turn around." I said I believe in our system. There is a dialectic. The Founders anticipated this and that's why they incorporated things like checks and balances and regularly scheduled coup de etats.

We are in a perpetual war with ballots instead of bullets. As Churchill said, it's the worst system in the world except for everything else.

I am not waiting for anything. I am ready and willing to fight the battles, and win. I'm not ready to wring my hands over the battles we have lost or will lose, and I'm certainly not ready to cut my nose off to spite my face.

So since you don't respect our system, which one would you advocate instead?

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 12:00 PM)Velleity Wrote:  So since you don't respect our system, which one would you advocate instead?

So since you're fond of making shit up I never said, and cramming words in my mouth, can you explain yourself in this tactic?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 12:30 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 12:00 PM)Velleity Wrote:  So since you don't respect our system, which one would you advocate instead?

So since you're fond of making shit up I never said, and cramming words in my mouth, can you explain yourself in this tactic?

Interpretation of your words is not "cramming words" or a tactic. There is no reason for you to get so defensive. You could answer that you favor our system, if you really do.

Understand that our Founding Fathers faced pretty much the same issues we face today. They did battle against The British East India Company and also found, from the very beginning, an entrenched commercial institution of slavery. They prevailed against the former and kicked the latter can down the road.

So instead of shooting off your usual "making shit up," "cramming words" and "tactic" epithets why don't you just answer the question? If you're not up for this battle then how would you propose to change the system?

Of course you can tell me you really are up to this battle, if that's the case. I may even believe you.

Or not.

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 12:38 PM)Velleity Wrote:  Interpretation of your words is not "cramming words" or a tactic.

Interpretation is not what you did. You lied, counselor...and attributed something to me I never said.

Now, do you want to admit and curb that behavior in the future to facilitate a respectful dialogue? Yes or no?

[sandnsea]

(06-25-2012 01:21 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 12:38 PM)Velleity Wrote:  Interpretation of your words is not "cramming words" or a tactic.

Interpretation is not what you did. You lied, counselor...and attributed something to me I never said.

Now, do you want to admit and curb that behavior in the future to facilitate a respectful dialogue? Yes or no?

Uh, did you ever apologize to Suzie for doing the same thing to her? Or apologize to me for berating me for bringing it to your attention and asking you to stop??

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 01:29 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Uh, did you ever apologize to Suzie for doing the same thing to her? Or apologize to me for berating me for bringing it to your attention and asking you to stop??

Ahhh, and in comes Tweedldumber. I am so blessed.

[sandnsea]

(06-25-2012 01:36 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:29 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Uh, did you ever apologize to Suzie for doing the same thing to her? Or apologize to me for berating me for bringing it to your attention and asking you to stop??

Ahhh, and in comes Tweedldumber. I am so blessed.

Gosh, and there I go, imagining abuses that don't exist again.

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 01:43 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Gosh, and there I go, imagining abuses that don't exist again.

Maybe if you gave up on the idea of following me around in the forums because jaxx spanked you, you wouldn't set yourself up for more trouble?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 01:43 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:36 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Ahhh, and in comes Tweedldumber. I am so blessed.

Gosh, and there I go, imagining abuses that don't exist again.

You're missing the point. Kona is asking, no begging us to mock him.

Try it. It's fun.

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 01:46 PM)Velleity Wrote:  You're missing the point. Kona is asking, no begging us to mock him.

Try it. It's fun.

Out of ammo so quickly, Perry?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 01:49 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:46 PM)Velleity Wrote:  You're missing the point. Kona is asking, no begging us to mock him.

Try it. It's fun.

Out of ammo so quickly, Perry?

Hahahaha. Perry Mason, right?

A little before my time but you breaking on the stand and having a shit fit the way you did here is totally apt.

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 01:52 PM)Velleity Wrote:  A little before my time but you breaking on the stand and having a shit fit the way you did here is totally apt.

If you're finished acting 14, care to answer my question? Or, gods forbid, get back on thread topic and quit (once again) making the topic about me?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 02:06 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:52 PM)Velleity Wrote:  A little before my time but you breaking on the stand and having a shit fit the way you did here is totally apt.

If you're finished acting 14, care to answer my question? Or, gods forbid, get back on thread topic and quit (once again) making the topic about me?

OH NO! OH NO!

KONA'S ACCUSING ME OF MAKING THIS ABOUT HIM!

OH NO! WHAT AM I GOING TO DO NOW?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 01:21 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 12:38 PM)Velleity Wrote:  Interpretation of your words is not "cramming words" or a tactic.

Interpretation is not what you did. You lied, counselor...and attributed something to me I never said.

Now, do you want to admit and curb that behavior in the future to facilitate a respectful dialogue? Yes or no?

If I was disrespectful I would apologize. I was in no way disrespectful so I have nothing to apologize for.

Besting you in a debate and getting you to melt down like this is not called "disrespect." Using your own temper against you is a skill.

So what system do you prefer?

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 01:40 PM)Velleity Wrote:  If I was disrespectful I would apologize. I was in no way disrespectful so I have nothing to apologize for.

Ah, a very Republican apology! Well done! Lots of practice?

Quote:Besting you in a debate and getting you to melt down like this is not called "disrespect."

This isn't a "debate" and the only thing you've bested so far upping the dismal parts of your personality resume.

Quote:Using your own temper against you is a skill.

Not to worry son, skills can be aquired with practice. Keep at it.

Quote:So what system do you prefer?

The one we have, where it's possible to get more progressive Democrats elected to Red regions. As this idea obviously puts you in a foul mood, can you enlighten us...what is your problem with electing more progressive Dems in those places?

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 01:44 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:40 PM)Velleity Wrote:  If I was disrespectful I would apologize. I was in no way disrespectful so I have nothing to apologize for.

Ah, a very Republican apology! Well done! Lots of practice?

Quote:Besting you in a debate and getting you to melt down like this is not called "disrespect."

This isn't a "debate" and the only thing you've bested so far upping the dismal parts of your personality resume.

Quote:Using your own temper against you is a skill.

Not to worry son, skills can be aquired with practice. Keep at it.

Quote:So what system do you prefer?

The one we have, where it's possible to get more progressive Democrats elected to Red regions. As this idea obviously puts you in a foul mood, can you enlighten us...what is your problem with electing more progressive Dems in those places?

So, sport, you're suggesting a dictatorship of proletariat?

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 01:48 PM)Velleity Wrote:  So, sport, you're suggesting a dictatorship of proletariat?

Getting progressive Democrats elected in Red states is equivalent to forcing a dictatorship of the proletariet? You better brush up on your Marx. Or at least stay awake through a civics class.

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 01:51 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:48 PM)Velleity Wrote:  So, sport, you're suggesting a dictatorship of proletariat?

Getting progressive Democrats elected in Red states is equivalent to forcing a dictatorship of the proletariet? You better brush up on your Marx. Or at least stay awake through a civics class.

You have some problems with reading comprehension, don't you?

I asked you if you were suggesting a dictatorship of the proletariat. That has nothing to do with my understanding of Marx or any kind of a civics class.

And no, I will not stoop to your level and suggest that you're putting words in my mouth. You are not putting words in my mouth. You are evading the question because, let's face it, you're lame. You're limping along here getting your ass kicked again.

So what's your system here? Try to focus. Try to process. Try to stay on point.

How are you going to force people in red states to live up to your standards?

[KonaKane]

(06-25-2012 02:10 PM)Velleity Wrote:  I asked you if you were suggesting a dictatorship of the proletariat. That has nothing to do with my understanding of Marx or any kind of a civics class.

It has everything to do with your incredible lack of education in civics if, from a move to get more progressive Dems elected in Red states, you "deduced" a suggestion of rule by the proletariat.

In fact, it begs one to wonder if you've been eating hallucinogens.

Quote:And no, I will not stoop to your level and suggest that you're putting words in my mouth. You are not putting words in my mouth. You are evading the question because, let's face it, you're lame. You're limping along here getting your ass kicked again.

Don't most psychologists call that imaginary victory dance behavior evidence of psychotic lack of esteem?

Quote:So what's your system here? Try to focus. Try to process. Try to stay on point.

My system is your system. Unless you moved abroad overnight.

Quote:How are you going to force people in red states to live up to your standards?

How on earth is helping more progressive Dems win in Red states "forcing people" in any way?

[Velleity]

Try not to be so easy. Okay?

It's just an internet b.s. board. The fact that I yank your chain now and then isn't the end of the world.

[There Is No Spoon]

Bah, it's no fun when people get petty and attempt to set the other off.

It appears nothing more of substance will be revealed in this thread.

Until next time this topic arises...