Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange
tl;dr
Was this written by...
tl;dr
Was this written by...
Was this written by...
A) Ezra Klein of The American Prospect
B) Rachel Maddow of MSNBC
C) Norm Ornstein of the ultra-liberal American Enterprise Institute
D) Maureen Dowd of the New York Times
E) Author Christoper Hitchens
Was this written by...
A) Ezra Klein of The American Prospect
B) Rachel Maddow of MSNBC
C) Norm Ornstein of the ultra-liberal American Enterprise Institute
D) Maureen Dowd of the New York Times
E) Author Christoper Hitchens
tl;dr
Was this written by...
A) Ezra Klein of The American Prospect
B) Rachel Maddow of MSNBC
C) Norm Ornstein of the ultra-liberal American Enterprise Institute
D) Maureen Dowd of the New York Times
E) Author Christoper Hitchens
Sooo......your point is what?
That mainstream conservatives have the opinion that Obama isn't a radical as portrayed by many in the media (and on this thread) but is actually governing from the middle...
It seems that his detractors have gotten more extreme rather than him.
And you have to weigh over 600 pounds to be able to pick and choose who's a "mainstream conservative" and who isn't, apparently.
its Rasmussen. your mileage may vary.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
Those governments were fascist. There are always going to be fascist elements on the fringe of the right -- militarism, nationalism, fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism all trend right -- but my point is it's a mistake to characterize the whole movement by its worst elements. You might as well equate the entire civil rights movement with the Black Panthers. And for that matter, economic crises can also breed far left movements -- Lenin would never have had a chance without severe economic distress.
The real brownshirt movements, the serious ones in the 30's, or post-war Britain, or the various right wing dictatorships in Central and South America, prey on an enormous, indigestible mass of unemployed, young people with no future. That's where Hitler got his muscle from. The people who work with me, well, they work. They don't have college educations but they do have mortgages, kids, things on the line. Fear plays into some of their thinking -- it's amazing to hear otherwise rational people talk about "the gay agenda" -- but it isn't the dominant factor the way it is in the real crazy movements like the militias. They aren't Birthers.
I think it's a big mistake to think of the teabaggers as primarily or even significantly, say, racist, because that is a way of underestimating them. It's the mirror of the right pretending liberals and socialists and communists are all the same thing.
That's a little harsh. Rush doesn't look much over 300 lbs.
There goes their last ounce of reputation...there was little left after being an outlier for years.
Maybe he meant Jack Germond? Is that old guy still even alive?
Ahhh...yes. You're an expat, so you don't pay any taxes, correct?
You do realize that Rasmussen was the closest polling firm to the actual results on Election Day last year, right?
Feel free to continue ignoring that though. If it's one thing you're good at, it's ignoring reality.
Umm..if you want to accuse me of 'ignoring reality' in past posts...feel free to tee em up.
It's an everyday occurrence. It's like every time I ever bother to respond to you.
Yep...usual weak conservative response. No facts, no follow through.
You can doubt Rasmussen if you want, you certainly would have some justification.
I just don't get why he would choose to push Ron Paul as a legitimate candidate. In other words, what incentive does he have to fire up a Ron Paul campaign? If Ras is really in the tank for Republicans, why would he encourage a candidate who at best would siphon votes away from them?