Sounds about right to me....THINGS ARE INDEED BROKEN IN DC/SACRAMENTO/(INSERT STATE CAPITAL)
What [The Left] hear: If it were not for the obstructionist Republicans, our grand vision would be implemented, and America would be saved.
What [The Right] means: Big government cronyism is a huge political problem.
Tell that to the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Jack Abramoff, etc, etc, etc.SuperHornet wrote:Things people on both sides of the aisle can agree on, but only because they have different interpretations of the words used....
Sounds about right to me....THINGS ARE INDEED BROKEN IN DC/SACRAMENTO/(INSERT STATE CAPITAL)
What [The Left] hear: If it were not for the obstructionist Republicans, our grand vision would be implemented, and America would be saved.
What [The Right] means: Big government cronyism is a huge political problem.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/108417-talk-liberals/
You're as much of a robot as conservatives who complain about Soroskalm wrote:Tell that to the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Jack Abramoff, etc, etc, etc.SuperHornet wrote:Things people on both sides of the aisle can agree on, but only because they have different interpretations of the words used....
Sounds about right to me....
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/108417-talk-liberals/
Ehhh... Both sides are guilty of it, but Conk mythology and hypocrisy regarding crony capitalism runs deeper. Sorry this hurts your feelings.CID1990 wrote:You're as much of a robot as conservatives who complain about Soroskalm wrote:
Tell that to the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Jack Abramoff, etc, etc, etc.
What was the connection between the firm that created the Obamacare website and the Obamas again?kalm wrote:
Ehhh... Both sides are guilty of it, but Conk mythology and hypocrisy regarding crony capitalism runs deeper. Sorry this hurts your feelings.
Like I said. And continuing to vote for either side perpetuates this.CAA Flagship wrote:What was the connection between the firm that created the Obamacare website and the Obamas again?kalm wrote:
Ehhh... Both sides are guilty of it, but Conk mythology and hypocrisy regarding crony capitalism runs deeper. Sorry this hurts your feelings.
My feelings don't have to be hurt to call you a robot when you parrot Rachel Maddow.kalm wrote:Ehhh... Both sides are guilty of it, but Conk mythology and hypocrisy regarding crony capitalism runs deeper. Sorry this hurts your feelings.CID1990 wrote:
You're as much of a robot as conservatives who complain about Soros
Yet you CONTINUALLY defend the donk position....quite a conundrum you're got there, klammy.kalm wrote:Ehhh... Both sides are guilty of it, but Conk mythology and hypocrisy regarding crony capitalism runs deeper. Sorry this hurts your feelings.CID1990 wrote:
You're as much of a robot as conservatives who complain about Soros
CID1990 wrote:My feelings don't have to be hurt to call you a robot when you parrot Rachel Maddow.kalm wrote:
Ehhh... Both sides are guilty of it, but Conk mythology and hypocrisy regarding crony capitalism runs deeper. Sorry this hurts your feelings.
Lions! Tigers! Bears! Koch Brothers! Oh my!
I like klammy (no homo), but he doesn't seem to have too many mirrors in his house.AZGrizFan wrote:Yet you CONTINUALLY defend the donk position....quite a conundrum you're got there, klammy.kalm wrote:
Ehhh... Both sides are guilty of it, but Conk mythology and hypocrisy regarding crony capitalism runs deeper. Sorry this hurts your feelings.
That might have been how SH interpreted the article but it wasn't how I, sitting here in my wiggly little jello mold of middle ground interpreted it. The article might have been written by a conservative but in its essence (and probably without the author even realizing it), it was mocking both sides for parroting their own narrative and refusing to hear the other side's. I realize that you're trying to shine a light on conservative stubbornness and blindness but you continue to do so while conveniently not doing the same for liberals (other than stating that you're not an Obama supporter). Maybe the fact that you didn't see this article as cutting both ways says more about you than it does about others. You're right about the hypocritical nature of conservatives decrying cronyism while taking Koch money but if you want to be a true Teddy Roosevelt progressive you need attack hypocrisy on both sides.kalm wrote:CID1990 wrote:
My feelings don't have to be hurt to call you a robot when you parrot Rachel Maddow.
Lions! Tigers! Bears! Koch Brothers! Oh my!
Now Cidney,
SH posted something that championed conk's disdain for crony capitalism. Either you think that is a fair statement, or you agree with me that it also exists on the right, making SH's post hypocritical. If so, then again...I'm sorry knowing I'm right chaps your hide so much.
Being the party of big business, the right seemed to be well ahead of the left when it came to winning favorable legislation, tax policy, and regulation for many years. I'm sure you're well aware that the Koch's have spent btruck loads in lobbying and funding of think tanks to promote their business agenda. Perhaps the left is now catching up.
I haven't watched Maddow in a few years, but if she's talking about the same thing, understand it's just a push back towards many on the right for bleating on and on about competition while condoning behavior that stifles it.
Baaaaaaahhhhhhh.
Well if you're accusing me of leaning left on many issues then guilty as charged. I do value opposing viewpoints and keep my mind open to the fact that both sides of the fence bare warts. But I can also rise above fence sitting enough to recognize there are certain issues where one side or the other is more hypocritical or just simply wrong about. Being independent isnt just a matter of saying "both sides do it". But for the sake of message boards you better qualify each statement with that or else you're a partisan hack.UNI88 wrote:That might have been how SH interpreted the article but it wasn't how I, sitting here in my wiggly little jello mold of middle ground interpreted it. The article might have been written by a conservative but in its essence (and probably without the author even realizing it), it was mocking both sides for parroting their own narrative and refusing to hear the other side's. I realize that you're trying to shine a light on conservative stubbornness and blindness but you continue to do so while conveniently not doing the same for liberals (other than stating that you're not an Obama supporter). Maybe the fact that you didn't see this article as cutting both ways says more about you than it does about others. You're right about the hypocritical nature of conservatives decrying cronyism while taking Koch money but if you want to be a true Teddy Roosevelt progressive you need attack hypocrisy on both sides.kalm wrote:
Now Cidney,
SH posted something that championed conk's disdain for crony capitalism. Either you think that is a fair statement, or you agree with me that it also exists on the right, making SH's post hypocritical. If so, then again...I'm sorry knowing I'm right chaps your hide so much.
Being the party of big business, the right seemed to be well ahead of the left when it came to winning favorable legislation, tax policy, and regulation for many years. I'm sure you're well aware that the Koch's have spent btruck loads in lobbying and funding of think tanks to promote their business agenda. Perhaps the left is now catching up.
I haven't watched Maddow in a few years, but if she's talking about the same thing, understand it's just a push back towards many on the right for bleating on and on about competition while condoning behavior that stifles it.
Baaaaaaahhhhhhh.
We're all partisan hacks to some degree on something and I don't disagree that being independent isn't just a matter of saying "both sides do it". I do think you've been a little harder on the Conks than the Donks lately. Case in point, you're primed and ready to point out the hypocrisy of the right in complaining about crony capitalism (criticism which is very justified) but don't appear to hold to the same standard when it comes to Donks criticizing Christie on Bridgegate while ignoring Obushma's many similar transgressions. IMO, your online persona has move a little to the left.kalm wrote:Well if you're accusing me of leaning left on many issues then guilty as charged. I do value opposing viewpoints and keep my mind open to the fact that both sides of the fence bare warts. But I can also rise above fence sitting enough to recognize there are certain issues where one side or the other is more hypocritical or just simply wrong about. Being independent isnt just a matter of saying "both sides do it". But for the sake of message boards you better qualify each statement with that or else you're a partisan hack. :lol
I don't care about the article's title. I clearly stated that in its essence (and probably without the author even realizing it) the article was mocking both sides for parroting their own narrative and refusing to hear the other side's.kalm wrote:FTR, the article was titled "12 Argument-Enders That Liberals Will Never Disagree With". Not that there isn't some validity to the smack, but that's clearly all it was, and it's published in a journal that is clearly right leaning. Also FTR, I've taken Bill Clinton, Terry McCauliffe, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Rahm Emmanuel, and Nancy Pelosi to task as well as railed against the dangers of the nanny state on these here boards. I've spoken several times to the rigors of running a business in one of the most heavily regulated and taxed states in the country. So right back at ya for what you're interpretation of the article and my posting history says about you.
Dad?UNI88 wrote:We're all partisan hacks to some degree on something and I don't disagree that being independent isn't just a matter of saying "both sides do it". I do think you've been a little harder on the Conks than the Donks lately. Case in point, you're primed and ready to point out the hypocrisy of the right in complaining about crony capitalism (criticism which is very justified) but don't appear to hold to the same standard when it comes to Donks criticizing Christie on Bridgegate while ignoring Obushma's many similar transgressions. IMO, your online persona has move a little to the left.kalm wrote:Well if you're accusing me of leaning left on many issues then guilty as charged. I do value opposing viewpoints and keep my mind open to the fact that both sides of the fence bare warts. But I can also rise above fence sitting enough to recognize there are certain issues where one side or the other is more hypocritical or just simply wrong about. Being independent isnt just a matter of saying "both sides do it". But for the sake of message boards you better qualify each statement with that or else you're a partisan hack. :lol
I don't care about the article's title. I clearly stated that in its essence (and probably without the author even realizing it) the article was mocking both sides for parroting their own narrative and refusing to hear the other side's.kalm wrote:FTR, the article was titled "12 Argument-Enders That Liberals Will Never Disagree With". Not that there isn't some validity to the smack, but that's clearly all it was, and it's published in a journal that is clearly right leaning. Also FTR, I've taken Bill Clinton, Terry McCauliffe, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Rahm Emmanuel, and Nancy Pelosi to task as well as railed against the dangers of the nanny state on these here boards. I've spoken several times to the rigors of running a business in one of the most heavily regulated and taxed states in the country. So right back at ya for what you're interpretation of the article and my posting history says about you.
Yes you've taken Slick Willie, Babs, Harry, the Rahmfather and sweet Nancy to task in the past but it's been a while. It's time to stop sliding down the slope of liberalism and climb back to the summit where you can take shots at both sides.
Now go get me the newspaper and a Blatz.kalm wrote:Dad?UNI88 wrote:
We're all partisan hacks to some degree on something and I don't disagree that being independent isn't just a matter of saying "both sides do it". I do think you've been a little harder on the Conks than the Donks lately. Case in point, you're primed and ready to point out the hypocrisy of the right in complaining about crony capitalism (criticism which is very justified) but don't appear to hold to the same standard when it comes to Donks criticizing Christie on Bridgegate while ignoring Obushma's many similar transgressions. IMO, your online persona has move a little to the left.
I don't care about the article's title. I clearly stated that in its essence (and probably without the author even realizing it) the article was mocking both sides for parroting their own narrative and refusing to hear the other side's.
Yes you've taken Slick Willie, Babs, Harry, the Rahmfather and sweet Nancy to task in the past but it's been a while. It's time to stop sliding down the slope of liberalism and climb back to the summit where you can take shots at both sides.