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

Cap'n Cat wrote:Yeah, I disagree with it, Brother Baldy. Every prez has his ups and downs and he'll recover. Guy's got courage putting up with a lot of shit, just as Brother W did. Lots of time left - approximately six years.

BlueHen86 wrote:I disagree with the headline. Obama's presidency may not be going well, but I think the word "meltdown" is too strong. I still think that Obama will be relected.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Yeah, I disagree with it, Brother Baldy. Every prez has his ups and downs and he'll recover. Guy's got courage putting up with a lot of shit, just as Brother W did. Lots of time left - approximately six years.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Yeah, I disagree with it, Brother Baldy. Every prez has his ups and downs and he'll recover. Guy's got courage putting up with a lot of ****, just as Brother W did. Lots of time left - approximately six years.

Also, "...conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided."

I don't think so. The kind of conservatism that is growing today is the kind your gang would rather do without - xenophobic, homophobic, racist, isolationist, anti-world, etc.

Your quote is full of reaches and specualtive opinion and short on fact. Everything ebbs and flows. You're up one day and down the next. Bill Clinton, for example, was in the political grave in 1994 and came back to be a very popular president and statesman, neutering a "resurgent" ejaculatory wave of Conkunism in that stillborn "Contract With America" ****.

Gloating is unbecoming, Brother Baldy, as it comes back to bite you in short order.

UNI31f wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Yeah, I disagree with it, Brother Baldy. Every prez has his ups and downs and he'll recover. Guy's got courage putting up with a lot of shit, just as Brother W did. Lots of time left - approximately six years.

There may be a year and a half left on this term...but unless there is a turn around I don't see Obama getting another term. He over promised during his campaign, and over spent during his term thus far with little actual results.


I realize he inherited a shitty thing, but he basically promised that he could and would be the savior that would turn everything around. Even with democrat control of the the senate, congress, and the white house there hasn't been much change.

Bronco wrote:No kinder if you google
Bush is a

Baldy wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Also, "...conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided."

I don't think so. The kind of conservatism that is growing today is the kind your gang would rather do without - xenophobic, homophobic, racist, isolationist, anti-world, etc.

Your quote is full of reaches and specualtive opinion and short on fact. Everything ebbs and flows. You're up one day and down the next. Bill Clinton, for example, was in the political grave in 1994 and came back to be a very popular president and statesman, neutering a "resurgent" ejaculatory wave of Conkunism in that stillborn "Contract With America" ****.

Gloating is unbecoming, Brother Baldy, as it comes back to bite you in short order.

Trying to compare Obama to Clinton is a Herculean stretch.
Clinton is the consummate politician. He took the 1994 midterm azz kicking in stride and used it to redefine himself politically. Unlike Obama he took the hint and realized that socialized Hillarycare was wildly unpopular and quickly started his shift from the out of touch progressive radical to your more mainstream democrat politician. He adopted many of the Contract with America's ideas as his own and gladly accepted the credit for their success from the MSM in return. Obama, on the other hand, is a rigid progressive ideologue...unwilling to redefine himself or shift his views or policies. That unchecked arrogance will be his downfall.

kalm wrote:...The Obama adminstration can't run fast enough away from the progressive movement, or did you not read the thread about Robert Gibbs and the "professional left"? That's exactly who he's talking about.

Progressives tend toward populism and against established power and wealth. It was clear Obama was not a progressive as soon as he hired Geithner, Summers, and Emmanuel.

Democrats can't rely on labor $'s alone to get elected anymore. Just like Clinton before him he's a corporatist.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Trying to compare Obama to Clinton is a Herculean stretch.
Clinton is the consummate politician. He took the 1994 midterm azz kicking in stride and used it to redefine himself politically. Unlike Obama he took the hint and realized that socialized Hillarycare was wildly unpopular and quickly started his shift from the out of touch progressive radical to your more mainstream democrat politician. He adopted many of the Contract with America's ideas as his own and gladly accepted the credit for their success from the MSM in return. Obama, on the other hand, is a rigid progressive ideologue...unwilling to redefine himself or shift his views or policies. That unchecked arrogance will be his downfall.

The Obama adminstration can't run fast enough away from the progressive movement, or did you not read the thread about Robert Gibbs and the "professional left"? That's exactly who he's talking about.

Progressives tend toward populism and against established power and wealth. It was clear Obama was not a progressive as soon as he hired Geithner, Summers, and Emmanuel.

Democrats can't rely on labor $'s alone to get elected anymore. Just like Clinton before him he's a corporatist.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
The Obama adminstration can't run fast enough away from the progressive movement, or did you not read the thread about Robert Gibbs and the "professional left"? That's exactly who he's talking about.

That's just more empty rhetoric from Baghdad Bob. You know as good as I that the "professional left" and the Obama Administration will kiss and make up in short order. Even if this little rift isn't repaired, the vast majority will still continue to carry his water.

Progressives tend toward populism and against established power and wealth. It was clear Obama was not a progressive as soon as he hired Geithner, Summers, and Emmanuel.

"Progressives" are all about command and control. They try to cover their cancerous warts with a coat of populism, but "fundamental change" (sound familiar?) is their true mission.

Democrats can't rely on labor $'s alone to get elected anymore. Just like Clinton before him he's a corporatist.

"Progressives" will use any means necessary. In their upside-down world, "the ends justify the means".

native wrote:

kalm wrote:...The Obama adminstration can't run fast enough away from the progressive movement, or did you not read the thread about Robert Gibbs and the "professional left"? That's exactly who he's talking about.

Progressives tend toward populism and against established power and wealth. It was clear Obama was not a progressive as soon as he hired Geithner, Summers, and Emmanuel.

Democrats can't rely on labor $'s alone to get elected anymore. Just like Clinton before him he's a corporatist.

Progressives tend towards social democracy, not populism. Populists hold social and political values which, for the most part, are not compatible with the social and political values of social democrats, not to mention the constitution. That's why the country trends center-right, not center-left.

The kindest thing that could be said about Gibbs' verbal assault on the progressive left is to call it kabuki theater. The anti-left words do not match the pro-left actions of the administration.

oldsloguy wrote:

native wrote:
Progressives tend towards social democracy, not populism. Populists hold social and political values which, for the most part, are not compatible with the social and political values of social democrats, not to mention the constitution. That's why the country trends center-right, not center-left.

The kindest thing that could be said about Gibbs' verbal assault on the progressive left is to call it kabuki theater. The anti-left words do not match the pro-left actions of the administration.

Senior moment there ol' Boy?

The Populist and Progressive movements in American politics share many similarities despite springing forth from different demands. The Populist movement was primarily grew from the agrarian sector of the economy that
feared that Eastern industrialists and bankers were gaining too much influence and control over both political parties. The Populist agenda grew from a desire for reform in the banking industry, specifically to allow for free silver coinage. The Populists sought more governmental control of the banking system as well as governmental control over the operation of the nation's railroad and communication systems. The Populist movement was one that wanted to return a sense of power to the working man and sought to end the burgeoning sense that American was transforming from its democratic roots into a oligarchy run by the capitalist elite.

A sense of imbalance in the way the American economy was being run led to the rise of Populism. Widespread discontent with the lack of progress in railroad reform and with the McKinley tariffs-combined with the Constitutional inability to directly elect their own Senators led to the creation of a powerful new third party that sought many wholesale changes. Populism was at heart a rise borne from the discontent of the rural areas of America, building gradually but with an increasingly earnest fire among the farming communities in both the north and south, uniting the interests of black and whites alike. Populism was also helped along toward its destiny as a major movement through its beginnings as a means of socialization. The populist agenda was spread through such social events as picnics. They organized around a unified front against the encroaching power of the railroad industry and other manufacuturers.

The Progressive movement differs mostly from the Populist movement in focusing on reforming the political process as a whole, rather than focusing on the economic system. The Progressives saw the unchecked corruption of
big business and the legal system-as well as the continuing exploitation of workers, women and children-as the primary enemy. The spark for the progressives was the unfair election system which poisoned every aspect of American life. The progressive movement in America was mainly a middle class affair, made up of both men and women who saw their interests being co-opted both by the interests of the rich and the poor. They saw the large corporate interests in much the same light as the pressures being brough to bear by the huge onslaught of immigrants looking to take their jobs. Even labor unions were viewed with suspicion as a spreading tide of socialist aggression. The progressives viewed their primary goal in terms of regaining what they saw as a lapsed power; their interests had once been the main concern of the government, but those interests were now not at the top of the heap.

Although often accused of just barely falling short of communism on some of their proposals, the fact remains that most of the issues supported by the Populist movement eventually became the law of the land and the effect of the populist agenda is even felt today.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=37" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:See? Progressives are just like the populist tea baggers - minus the supply side economics, and a little bit of racism and mouth breathing.

The Populist and Progressive movements in American politics share many similarities despite springing forth from different demands. The Populist movement was primarily grew from the agrarian sector of the economy that
feared that Eastern industrialists and bankers were gaining too much influence and control over both political parties. The Populist agenda grew from a desire for reform in the banking industry, specifically to allow for free silver coinage. The Populists sought more governmental control of the banking system as well as governmental control over the operation of the nation's railroad and communication systems. The Populist movement was one that wanted to return a sense of power to the working man and sought to end the burgeoning sense that American was transforming from its democratic roots into a oligarchy run by the capitalist elite.

A sense of imbalance in the way the American economy was being run led to the rise of Populism. Widespread discontent with the lack of progress in railroad reform and with the McKinley tariffs-combined with the Constitutional inability to directly elect their own Senators led to the creation of a powerful new third party that sought many wholesale changes. Populism was at heart a rise borne from the discontent of the rural areas of America, building gradually but with an increasingly earnest fire among the farming communities in both the north and south, uniting the interests of black and whites alike. Populism was also helped along toward its destiny as a major movement through its beginnings as a means of socialization. The populist agenda was spread through such social events as picnics. They organized around a unified front against the encroaching power of the railroad industry and other manufacuturers.

The Progressive movement differs mostly from the Populist movement in focusing on reforming the political process as a whole, rather than focusing on the economic system. The Progressives saw the unchecked corruption of
big business and the legal system-as well as the continuing exploitation of workers, women and children-as the primary enemy. The spark for the progressives was the unfair election system which poisoned every aspect of American life. The progressive movement in America was mainly a middle class affair, made up of both men and women who saw their interests being co-opted both by the interests of the rich and the poor. They saw the large corporate interests in much the same light as the pressures being brough to bear by the huge onslaught of immigrants looking to take their jobs. Even labor unions were viewed with suspicion as a spreading tide of socialist aggression. The progressives viewed their primary goal in terms of regaining what they saw as a lapsed power; their interests had once been the main concern of the government, but those interests were now not at the top of the heap.

Although often accused of just barely falling short of communism on some of their proposals, the fact remains that most of the issues supported by the Populist movement eventually became the law of the land and the effect of the populist agenda is even felt today.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=37" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:See? Progressives are just like the populist tea baggers - minus the supply side economics, and a little bit of racism and mouth breathing.

Yes kalm, have a "progressive" tard in his mom's basement self explain just how mainstream and welcoming the "progressives" are.

Might as well have David Duke or Robert Byrd give an objective view of the Klan and how it was based on religious principle.

The truth is you can't hide the disgusting history of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. etc. etc. that is at the root of "progressivism" no matter how much you try to revise it.

Sorry.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:

Yes kalm, have a "progressive" tard in his mom's basement self explain just how mainstream and welcoming the "progressives" are.

Might as well have David Duke or Robert Byrd give an objective view of the Klan and how it was based on religious principle.

The truth is you can't hide the disgusting history of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. etc. etc. that is at the root of "progressivism" no matter how much you try to revise it.

Sorry.

Yes, when you and the 7.5% of America that drinks the kool aid think racism, sexism, bigotry the first thing that comes to mind is progressive.