Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SuperHornet wrote:The Senate has voted 100-0 to sanction Iran if they fail to live up to the terms of the current treaty being worked out. And you know they'll thumb their nose at us the first chance they get. Even lib Leon Panetta has declared that Iran is NOT capable of negotiating in good faith. In fact, Iran already HAS dissed us.



If uberlib Senators like Reid, Sanders, and Franken understand what's going on, why can't Obama?



http://conservativetribune.com/senate-v ... efy-obama/

kalm wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:The Senate has voted 100-0 to sanction Iran if they fail to live up to the terms of the current treaty being worked out. And you know they'll thumb their nose at us the first chance they get. Even lib Leon Panetta has declared that Iran is NOT capable of negotiating in good faith. In fact, Iran already HAS dissed us.



If uberlib Senators like Reid, Sanders, and Franken understand what's going on, why can't Obama?



http://conservativetribune.com/senate-v ... efy-obama/

Panetta is about as liberal George Bush was conservative. Reid is über moderate. Dummy.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Panetta is about as liberal George Bush was conservative. Reid is über moderate. Dummy.

On the klam sliding scale of politics, shifted about 60 degrees to the left.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

On the klam sliding scale of politics, shifted about 60 degrees to the left.

That says more about you than me.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
That says more about you than me.

Oh, just admit that you're a raging liberal who happens to like golf.

Just like Obummer.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Oh, just admit that you're a raging liberal who happens to like golf.

Just like Obummer.

Oh I'm very liberal on some things. Just like any reasonable person should be.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh I'm very liberal on some things. Just like any reasonable person should be.

Some things?

Youre reliably liberal everywhere you post here

Im still waiting for this conservative side you claim to have to pop up

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh I'm very liberal on some things. Just like any reasonable person should be.

Some things?

Youre reliably liberal everywhere you post here

Im still waiting for this conservative side you claim to have to pop up

SuperHornet wrote:The Senate has voted 100-0 to sanction Iran if they fail to live up to the terms of the current treaty being worked out. And you know they'll thumb their nose at us the first chance they get. Even lib Leon Panetta has declared that Iran is NOT capable of negotiating in good faith. In fact, Iran already HAS dissed us.



If uberlib Senators like Reid, Sanders, and Franken understand what's going on, why can't Obama?

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh I'm very liberal on some things. Just like any reasonable person should be.

Some things?

Youre reliably liberal everywhere you post here

Im still waiting for this conservative side you claim to have to pop up

Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Some things?

Youre reliably liberal everywhere you post here

Im still waiting for this conservative side you claim to have to pop up

I've posted this article from 2012 before, but it serves as a helpful reminder regarding those who are confused about labels and ideology or who think the democratic party or Obama are liberal.

Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also find some good info from the Matt Stoller article linked in Greenwald's piece:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/ ... erals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So yes, Kalm is a liberal on many issues and very liberal on some. But when it comes to things like the surveillance state, war on drugs, Buchanion isolationism, immigration, the Fed, and trade agreements that sacrifice democracy and a nation's sovereignty, I'm somewhat traditionally conservative…unlike those who vote republican.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Some things?

Youre reliably liberal everywhere you post here

Im still waiting for this conservative side you claim to have to pop up

I've posted this article from 2012 before, but it serves as a helpful reminder regarding those who are confused about labels and ideology or who think the democratic party or Obama are liberal.

Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also find some good info from the Matt Stoller article linked in Greenwald's piece:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/ ... erals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So yes, Kalm is a liberal on many issues and very liberal on some. But when it comes to things like the surveillance state, war on drugs, Buchanion isolationism, immigration, the Fed, and trade agreements that sacrifice democracy and a nation's sovereignty, I'm somewhat traditionally conservative…unlike those who vote republican.

Brock Landers wrote:

kalm wrote:
I've posted this article from 2012 before, but it serves as a helpful reminder regarding those who are confused about labels and ideology or who think the democratic party or Obama are liberal.



http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also find some good info from the Matt Stoller article linked in Greenwald's piece:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/ ... erals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So yes, Kalm is a liberal on many issues and very liberal on some. But when it comes to things like the surveillance state, war on drugs, Buchanion isolationism, immigration, the Fed, and trade agreements that sacrifice democracy and a nation's sovereignty, I'm somewhat traditionally conservative…unlike those who vote republican.

You're doing it wrong. Instead of developing your own opinion and stance on each issue independently, you just parrot whatever your party or Church tells you. Let them do the thinking for you!

Brock Landers wrote:

kalm wrote:
I've posted this article from 2012 before, but it serves as a helpful reminder regarding those who are confused about labels and ideology or who think the democratic party or Obama are liberal.



http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also find some good info from the Matt Stoller article linked in Greenwald's piece:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/ ... erals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So yes, Kalm is a liberal on many issues and very liberal on some. But when it comes to things like the surveillance state, war on drugs, Buchanion isolationism, immigration, the Fed, and trade agreements that sacrifice democracy and a nation's sovereignty, I'm somewhat traditionally conservative…unlike those who vote republican.

You're doing it wrong. Instead of developing your own opinion and stance on each issue independently, you just parrot whatever your party or Church tells you. Let them do the thinking for you!

Brock Landers wrote:

kalm wrote:
I've posted this article from 2012 before, but it serves as a helpful reminder regarding those who are confused about labels and ideology or who think the democratic party or Obama are liberal.



http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also find some good info from the Matt Stoller article linked in Greenwald's piece:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/ ... erals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So yes, Kalm is a liberal on many issues and very liberal on some. But when it comes to things like the surveillance state, war on drugs, Buchanion isolationism, immigration, the Fed, and trade agreements that sacrifice democracy and a nation's sovereignty, I'm somewhat traditionally conservative…unlike those who vote republican.

You're doing it wrong. Instead of developing your own opinion and stance on each issue independently, you just parrot whatever your party or Church tells you. Let them do the thinking for you!

CID1990 wrote:

Brock Landers wrote: You're doing it wrong. Instead of developing your own opinion and stance on each issue independently, you just parrot whatever your party or Church tells you. Let them do the thinking for you!

Broack Landers, welcome to CS.com! Always glad to get newcomers.

Brock Landers wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Broack Landers, welcome to CS.com! Always glad to get newcomers.

Yes

Silenoz wrote:

Brock Landers wrote: Yes

Also yes

Wedgebuster wrote:Got a friend who stopped by just in time to help me move out an old refrigerator and load in my pickup yesterday

He is a drilling supervisor for a major oil exploration company and got laid off at the first of the year. Said it ALL was the fault of our N***** POTUS, I suggested he produced himself out of a job.

Then when I explained the old refrigerator was still functional, and I was giving it away and installing a new much more efficient fridge, he commented "all this energy efficiency is bad for our economy."

As for the author of this particular thread..

Wedgebuster wrote:No, I did not read your post because,
This post was made by Cluck U who is currently on your ignore list.

Still...