The US elections in November, 2010.

[Trolldor]

The loss that hurts me the most is Russ Feingold. The one Senator to vote against the patriot act. Was a champion of civil liberties, rebuking both the Bush and Obama administrations. Integral to campaign finance reform, reaching across party lines with John McCain time and time again. Voted against the Iraq War. One of the 10 poorest Senators. A fiscal moderate, he refused all raises in his salary, even giving $3.5 million back to the U.S. Treasury in the form of salary and office budget. He was ranked number 7 in the Senate for bi-partisan voting. Voted against DOMA and supported gay marriage legalization. Graduated from University of Wisconsin-Madison with honors, went to University of Oxford on the Rhodes Scholarship, attended Harvard Law School and got his J.D. with honors. He refused to run a negative campaign and asked outside Progressive groups not to run negative ads in his state. Feingold shined during the debates without going negative. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed him, citing his independence, bipartisanship, and courage to stand up to special interests. He then picked up dozens of other paper endorsements, including his opponent's hometown newspaper, the Oshkosh Northwestern.

He was defeated by Ron Johnson, a millionaire Tea Party candidate who spent $8M of his own money on his negative campaign, a campaign largely funded by groups from outside Wisconsin. He cited a Dick Armey appearance on Fox News as his inspiration for running. After a couple of disastrous media interviews and getting trounced by Feingold in the debates, he refused to speak to the press until the end of the election. No major policy positions beyond less taxes and more jobs. Global warming denier, calling climatologists "crazy," he also campaigned against gay rights, a woman's right to an abortion, and stem cell research--of the latter saying that ending funding would "help balance the budget." During a debate, Johnson stated that he is "disappointed that the Obama administration is launching an assault on BP" after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Johnson disclosed that he once owned more than $100,000 worth of stock in BP.

Idiocracy ascendant.

Man, that is seriously fucked up.

Welcome to Politics.

[Trolldor]

So, now that the Republicans are in charge can we expect as much vitriol against them for allthe fuckups that are inevitably going to follow?

[Warren Dew]

So, now that the Republicans are in charge can we expect as much vitriol against them for allthe fuckups that are inevitably going to follow?

The Republicans aren't in charge. They have a majority in the House, but the Democrats still have a majority in the Senate, plus the President is still Democratic.

Still, I'm sure the Republicans will get most of the vitriol.

[sandinista]

Cosmetic difference anyway, democrat, republican, slightly different sides of the same coin. Republicrats.

[Trolldor]

Same with Fascialism.

[sandinista]

now you agree with me...wow.

[Mahou]

Cosmetic difference anyway, democrat, republican, slightly different sides of the same coin. Republicrats.

Normally I'd agree with you, but there's been an inordinate amount of crazy in the republican party as of late. When your "face" is Carl Paladino, Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Bill O'Reilly, then I'm going to judge the whole party accordingly.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, now that the Republicans are in charge can we expect as much vitriol against them for allthe fuckups that are inevitably going to follow?

There was plenty of vitriol against Republicans under Bush, and when the Republicans last controlled the House and the Senate. So, I see no reason why the shrill rhetoric, and smug, snarky and sarcastic comments, won't continue unabated.

And, the Republicans are not in charge. They have a majority in the House. The Democrats control the Executive Branch and the Senate.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem lies in that a lot of these terms are relative.

A "conservative" in the USSR would have been a Left-Authoritarian. A modern "conservative" in the U.S. tends to be a Right-Authoritarian.

....and yet the non-authoritarian libertarian leaning folks are also called "conservative." Some of them even call themselves "conservative," in that they believe their ideas of libertarianism are in line with the "founding fathers."

Another problem lies in the way we use terms to have different meanings from their historical meanings. A "liberal" is just someone who promotes liberty,

That's not the common usage, in modern lingo. Many, if not most, liberals oppose economic liberty. That was not the case "back in the day." And, many liberals even oppose social liberties like freedom of speech, when that liberty is viewed as "hateful" or "racist." (example - most folks who think Geert Wilders should be prosecuted are liberals).

both words having the same Latin root. A "progressive" just means someone who promotes change. A "traditionalist" resists change. And today in America we tend to enjoy tarring people with one-word descriptors, when in reality they usually need multiple to describe their views accurately, yet succinctly. That's why I like the Political Compass. Using it, I would be a Left-Libertarian, which seems a more accurate descriptor for my views than "Democrat" or our bastardization of the word "liberal."

I agree.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not 'compared' to at all. Centre parties act according to the circumstances. Right parties are socially conservative and resistant to change. left parties advocate change.

Democrats advocate change. So, based on your definition, they are not center right.

Finally, sandy is as far to the left as you are to the right.

I'm not to the right on most issues. Some, yes, but generally speaking on most issues I would be considered "left" or "liberal" in any major, non-Communist, country.

[Trolldor]

Your views? Irrelevant. It's the motivations, and you are fairly reactionary.

[Rob]

most folks who think Geert Wilders should be prosecuted are liberals

I keep seeing this from you, CES, but where does this idea come from?

[Trolldor]

His arse.

[Coito ergo sum]

most folks who think Geert Wilders should be prosecuted are liberals

I keep seeing this from you, CES, but where does this idea come from?

The news. It's multiculturalists concerned about "sensitivity" to Muslims.

Example -

Islamic correctness, which criminalizes any criticism of Islam, is a rising force in the world, and not merely in Muslim-majority countries. Even in traditionally tolerant Holland, a combination of misguided liberal multiculturalism and a fear of violence from immigrants has led to a sometimes farcical prosecution.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/ ... se_of.html

And, on the discussions on this board about Geert Wilders, the normally "liberal" folks here were the ones more likely to line up against him. We had all sorts of arguments from "liberals" about how "hate" speech is not free, and it's perfectly fine to prosecute it, and how it's no big deal to prosecute him, and if he's convicted then he's guilty and if he's aquitted, so be it, et.c

[Trolldor]

Define 'liberals'.