[quote name='depascal22']It wasn't so much that we voted for change but that we will never ever vote for a Republican. I'd rather have a right-wing apologist instead of a right-winger.
Do you honestly think this country would be better off with Republican leadership?[/QUOTE]
No. It would be largely the same as it is now.
[quote name='mykevermin']"socialist." that would be kinda endearing and cute, except I know that you vote. that's when it becomes frightening. not because you vote thinking Obama is a socialist, but that you vote thinking you know what a socialist is. [/quote]
Ok before you go down that road, we need to have a common definition of socialist, don't we?
You may have noticed that when googling around for definitions of socialism, it isn't easy to get a solid. Most attempts at defining it are often qualified by statements like "very hard to define".
But since we gotta start somewhere, how's about the
Encyclopedia Britanica?
System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.
Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, seeing socialism as a transition state ... (100 of 8497 words)
Can you honestly say you, and other lefties here, don't believe in and actively strive for the above bolded? Can you honestly tell me your strong belief in MORE of the above bolded are not a primary driver as you punch out your chads?
The arguments about "the system" are misguided. Forgive me for not liking to flounder ideas about in an abstract fashion, but I like to look at the empirical world. During the 2008-2009 Congressional sessions, the *significant* increase in (1) use of the filibuster as a legislative roadblock, (2) judicial nominees being upheld or blocked with no vote for approval (including those with no reasonable objections), (3) the number of stalled bills on the floor, neither dead nor living, shows the change in the very system you pretend is so stagnant.
It can't be both the same as it ever was, yet so remarkably different. I can point to areas where, from a procedural standpoint, it is significantly different. What can you point to that happened historically to prove your point, thrust? What 'data' (using the term loosely) can you mine? Will you dare search for something more substantive than merely labeling Mitt Ronmey's Massachusetts Health Care Plan as "socialism?" Will you do more than label funding the auto industry (who kept autonomy the whole time) as "socialism?"
I don't disagree with you. It seems my point was missed; that true SOCIAL changes don't occur quickly on a federal level in this country.
The changes you site are true, but how have they affected mine and your every day life? You might say you are jobless because of them, and that's impossible to argue either way, but you can't argue that we are different country today than we were in 2008 because of massive changes in the judicial system.
You're framing the narrative since 1/21/09 as you see fit, with no regard to what actually happened in Washington, D.C. And yet you're proud of yourself for the opinions you hold - when in reality your opinions are just conglomerated opinions on top of other opinions. Once you dissect what you think, you encounter legislative activity that, day-after-day-after-day-except-for-the-days-theyre-not-in-session, runs contrary to what you're saying, as well as nothing of substantive, *objective* value to support your point.
I am not really clear what you think I'm saying, because I wasn't really saying anything in my last post beyond dmaul being right (why don't you include him in this beratement if you disagree with his point so?). It appears to me that you are projecting some all-encompassing bucket of right-wingisms you have collected around the media on to me once again.
I don't have to inject my politics into my claim: the use of the filibuster went up 300% since Democrats became the majority party (and that's over the high threshold it grew to from 1997-2007). That's not something you can agree or disagree with ideologically, that's a *number*. There have never been more unfulfilled judge positions in history than since the 2009 and 2010 Congressional sessions, enhancing court backlogs substantially (think of how many dropped charges we'll get on account of that obstruction combined w/ the federal speedy trial act!). That's not my opinion, that's a number.
Ok? If you were trying to argue a point of mine, I don't know which one it is.
So, what can you combat that with to prove the status quo is in place, this is the Washington political machine functioning as normal? You're the one saying the system is rejecting the radical, and I'm pointing out that the system done got radical on its own accord. You are shamefully wrong, and content to be informed by a knowledge of forming political dialogue and a thorough disinterest in politics themselves. You just like the political contests. That much is clear based on what little you bring to the table, discursively.
I do agree that the system got to where it is on it's own as a frog in the boiling pot. I guess you could call it radical, if you measure by standards of a few decades ago.
I guess what you must be trying to argue is that the system got uber-radical over the last ten years. Beyond stuff like the patriot act, I don't really agree - but so what?
I mean, really. I've spent 5 minutes typing up something to thoroughly refute your point. You've wasted my time today because you had to try to make a claim that is so easily proven untrue. And yet, if I were to point that out simply, you'd just move on and never feel challenged to mature into an informed person who pays attention to Washington beyond what the bullshit media tells you.
I think it's abundantly clear by now that you saw a point where there was none. Why didn't you spend all this time refuting that you DIDN'T think you were voting for New Sweden in 2008?
Instead you think it's appropriate to herp and derp about how Obama is a socialist. I couldn't be more disappointed in his policy concessions as a president than I have been since he announced the tax deal. I don't want to see the guy, I don't want to vote for the guy. He caved and now is a part of keeping the Oligarchs in power. But that doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to buy into the "herp derp socialist" part of things, or that I'll let you get away with posting such juvenile, uninformed, low-class tripe here.
Ok, you cary on in conjuring up points that you then get to argue against for your ego's sake, I'll keep cooking tripe tacos...
ed up stuff. Almost like they were trying to balance Karma or something 
