StrangeSox

The third example? Obama ending Bush's use of torture! Oh, wait...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) No, but the other $700 billion in spending did, and the upper class tax cuts in there, although small, again didn't hurt...it's pushing in the inflationary direction. If you're going to argue that you'd rather have no stimulus bill you guys are out of your minds completely. Go read what was in that bill. No one is arguing for no stimulus bill. We are arguing that continuing to vote for bad Democrats like Obama will ensure that the heavily compromised stimulus bill is the absolute best we can ever hope for.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) Big deal. You could probably create a similar one for GWB and make him look like a great leader. Look at the first two I got: A bill that will save millions or maybe billions over a decade on defense spending, and his order to close gitmo. I couldn't come up with better examples of his ineptitude myself.

ahahahahaha and this was the second one! http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/gua...rder/index.html Awesome website Balta!

LOL, this is the one that came up for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_System...orm_Act_of_2009 Yep, they've really dug into the defense spending problem!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) So, "preventing a 2nd great depression" = 5 pounds of s***? yeah, I'll eat that to avoid another depression. Maintaining the plutarchy where the rich keep getting richer and the rest of us get a constant diet of s*** = 5 pounds of s***

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:18 PM) Would we have been better had that bill not passed? "Do you want to eat 5 pounds of s*** or 10 pounds?"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:17 PM) 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. Huh, that's a pretty bizarre reading of that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) 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? 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?

Just out of curiosity, did you know our government is a plutarchy and that Democrats are just as much a part of the problem?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) 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? Democrats: We'll enact 1 year progressive policies but perpetuate and even expand upper-class tax cuts!

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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) 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. Maybe they should run a candidate who won't give in to the Republicans on every issue? Gotta save all that political capital, I guess.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) If that's the case, your choice leads to the quickest death. Better to rip a band-aid off.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) Excellent response. honestly that applies to this entire argument. Soxtalk needs a serious smiley update, though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:52 PM) 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. I guess this means we get the gradual death of progressive policies over time at best.

Balta, why do you believe that the Democrats are entitled to my vote?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:52 PM) 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. Still gotta explain the overall terribleness that was 2009-2011.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) Sqwert and Strange, you guys are going seriously hyperbolic here. Obama's policies and actions have clearly, demonstrably been different than Bush's. And if you know a fair amount about how the Iraq war got going in BushCo, you'd know quite clearly that Obama would not have gone down that road. What you really mean to say is, Obama has not been change-y ENOUGH for your tastes. And I get that, that makes sense. Its just laughable that you push that all the way off the edge of the scale into Obama = Bush. I'm disappointed in Obama too, on some things. That doesn't mean I need to resort to extremes to try to make a point. On some things, sure, he's been different than Bush. On a lot of things, including broad ideas on executive power, he's been just as bad if not worse than Bush. That doesn't mean I don't prefer Obama over Bush, despite whatever tortured (at Gitmo, thanks to Obama!) argument Balta will try to make. I do not think Obama would have invaded Iraq, but that boat sailed a long time ago and it's a nonsensical argument. When you're 1/2 a mile down the road looking back at two people, you won't be able to see a whole lot of difference between them. This cuts both ways, because I'm sure we've all seen plenty of "RINO" accusations and Republicans lamenting having to vote for McCain just to keep Obama out of office. Why the hell would a hypothetical voter who's an out-and-out Communist ever even consider voting for Obama? Why would the staunchest Randriod Objectivist vote for Mitt Romney? This sort of thinking keeps the country locked into the petty squabbles and ultimately minor differences between Republicans and Democrats. You can't look at this through the narrow view of American mainstream politics.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) So why do you insist on casting a vote that will make both of those things happen? We already said we're not voting for Obama. Balta you have to acknowledge this awesome

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:42 PM) Well, clearly he's been voted out of office because you refused to vote for him he's a crappy President who did nothing to earn my vote. fify

New Democrat slogan: We won't actively work against progressive agendas nearly as much as Republicans!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) 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. If it means centrists democrats (republican-lite) weren't as powerful in 2014 and 2016 and the Democrats nominated someone who actually deserves the progressive vote, perhaps. The problem is that 2009-2011 is likely the best we'll ever see the Democrats. They had huge majorities and, by all accounts, a President who was at least sympathetic to progressive policies. And what did they accomplish? A heavily compromised health care reform bill and losing the framing battle with Republicans on every single issue. Whoppee.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) 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. 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?