Balta1701

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:18 PM) Remember when the supermajority Dems and the newly elected president who had broad support passed a compromised stimulus bill that was way too Republican-friendly and included a whole lot of tax cuts instead of actual spending? Would we have been better had that bill not passed?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) Democrats: We'll enact 1 year progressive policies but perpetuate and even expand upper-class tax cuts! In other words, you really don't care about low-income energy assistance, because you'd rather not have it during an enormous recession than have it and have it go away.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) Remember when the Democrats completely bought into the Republicans' budget/deficit narrative and cut fuel subsidies for the poor and took the grey wolf off of the endangered species list? That was pretty awesome. Just out of curiousity, do you know that the "Fuel subsidies for the poor" that were cut was the ending of a new $4 billion program that only came into existence because of the stimulus package?

Humber? Actually, I'll take Pierre.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) Balta, why do you believe that the Democrats are entitled to my vote? Because anyone who believes that a Republican would not be vastly worse is absolutely deluding him or herself. Either that, or he or she paid zero attention to the last decade.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) I guess this means we get the gradual death of progressive policies over time at best. If that's the case, your choice leads to the quickest death.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:48 PM) Balta has made is clear: he'd rather support a weak President and bad Democrat politicians who will not enact any progressive policies and barely anything even left-leaning because Republicans are scary. Conservatives win that end-game. Every time. What you're missing is that we actually gave a real life test to your proposal in 2000. Enough people voted for Ralph Nader to help GWB become President. There are ZERO progressives who won from 2001-2007, and a whole lot who lost. Conservatives win your end-game. Every time. And a whole lot more people die.

At least you guys have made it clear...you'd rather have national unions dismantled and basically start dismantling the New Deal since we'd never have progressive legislation passed again than vote for the President.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:37 PM) Where is Obama during any of this? Didn't he say once that he'd stand with the Unions if they ever tried to ban collective bargaining? Well, clearly he's been voted out of office because you refused to vote for him.

Here's one more point for you guys...the Republicans have also proven to be more than happy to use the infrastructure of government as a tool to make sure that Republicans stay in power. The Bush administration's Attorney firing/DOJ politicization is a good starting point. The dismantling of the Unions is a more recent, much more active one. here's a non-farfetched hypothetical. Imagine that you cast a protest vote in 2012, Obama loses, and one of the first steps is to ban collective bargaining amongst national public employee unions, Wisconsin-style. The kind of progressive change that the Unions support would be gone, as would any chance of future progressive change. That'd be it and you know it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) And your vote makes sure the Democrats keep putting out bad candidates who can't or won't get any real progressive policies in place. What's better, long term? In the year 2000, I might well have agreed with you. Then the next 4 years happened. I can without any hesitation say that Democrats who didn't do anything progressive would have been a Hell of a lot better than that administration.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:24 PM) We'd be better off if progressives stopped voting for crappy politicians who sell them down the road every time and instead voted for--wait for it--progressive politicians. So, if progressive and centrists democrats were to split the vote and the next President was Donald Trump/Sarah Palin/Mittens, we'd be "Better off"? Your standard.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) Casting my vote for Obama will also ensure that these things happen. It will also ensure that we occupy two, potentially 3, countries in the middle east. And so your solution is to cast a vote that will help a person take power who would ensure we occupy 4-5 countries in the middle east.

By the way, different but linked topic...since the Affordable Care Act of 2010 allows states to set up their own system, it appears that the State of Vermont is going to establish fully universal health care in that state. Of course, we'd be better off if those 30 million people that the PPACA will help would remain uninsured, and we should vote that way.l

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) And the current Democratic leadership isn't addressing most priorities I find important. Cutting off heating oil subsidies for poor isn't a priority of mine. Neither is giving billionaires and corporations tax breaks. So why do you insist on casting a vote that will make both of those things happen?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:16 PM) GMAFB with your lame argument. Oh, so wait, you're willing to accept that sometimes the administration does share your values. So your vote is not against the administration sharing your values on some issues, it's a question of which issues you prioritize.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) so by voting for Cynthia McKinney, you're really voting for Sarah Palin. Frankly, yeah, I think they're both nuts, so I'd buy that completely.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:14 PM) Huh? Obama was fine with discriminating against homosexuals for 2 years before he bothered to do anything. And since the Adminstration has now turned its back on that period, and you said that this administration doesn't share your values, that means you went from opposing legalized discrimination to supporting it. Why did you decide last december to support legalized discrimination of homosexuals?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) Sorry but this administration doesn't behave in a way that reflects my values. Lets just keep extending those tax cuts for the wealthy! So why do your values include discrimination against homosexuals?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) At this point I could see the answer being "all of the above". And you're deluding yourself if you believe that. Really and truly. Bill Clinton, for example, had probably more reason in 1998 to invade Iraq than Jr. had in 2003. He did not do so. If that is your standard...under which presidents would Don't Ask, Don't Tell be the law of the land?

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:54 PM) I hear you. But could you see him playing LF? Maybe if he's successful after doing so for a full season. Basically, talk to me when September callups happen.

Which of those names would have launched a full scale invasion of Iraq in 2003? Do you honestly need me to go through the list of policies beyond that?

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:39 PM) Viciedo question: is there any chance he can play left field? Could you see him coming up and someone else leading off? Viciedo has typically struggled with the bats to start the season and he's struggling with teh bats now. He does not belong on the big league team right now.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) I feel as if there's a George Carlin joke in all of this...In football, when there's a labor issue, a judge tells them to end the lockout. In baseball, they just let it go on and on. I sure he could've said it better, but you get the gist. Um, I believe that a judge also ended the 1994-95 baseball strike. That Judge is now on the Supreme Court.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) I agree on Danks, but I'm not as ready to give up on Flowers yet. Flowers's problem is that he's out of options. This is his legit last shot with us.