Eh, we all have our off days. 'Tweren't no big thang. It's all good between me and thee. :sunny:

Are YOU kidding me?

That's akin to saying that liberalism had failed when Bush was in office and the Republicans had both houses of Congress. That makes no sense.

In fact, Newt Gingrich, THE face of neoconservatism, is running suprisingly well in early polls. As there are many other options in an anti-incumbent year, this would not only be surprising but outright shocking in a era of failed neoconservatism.

Regardless, I don't find Beck to be instrumental in the "failure" of the last elections. There are people who like him, and there are those who hate him - just like any other talking head.

I agree with mookie here. As a matter of fact, I think the housing bubble had little to do with politicians of either party, but its fun to watch them blame one another.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. Old liberalism's failure ushered in the 'Republican revolution' of '94, bringing Neo-Conservatism into the mainstream of politics. Now, Clinton was a Houdini of a politician, but outside of the White House, that failure kept the the liberals in the woods, for the most part, until 2006. It was the failure of Neo-Conservatism, in turn, that allowed the new left to come into that same mainstream. And here we are today.

Old liberalism did not fail when the Republicans were in power. It failed before that. It is why they came into power. The same is true for today and the failure of Neo-Conservatism. What I can say about polls is simply that the social-conservative faction of the Republican party, despite it's disasterous rule, remains very powerful, with a near stranglehold on the traditional media outlets. They are the ones you hear, the ones with the loudest voices. However, despite all of the noise they make, I do not believe that they represent the majority of those who call themselves conservatives. They certainly do not speak for me.

Did you just do a show at Edinburgh?:up:

Progressives have taken over the Democratic Party. What was once the Democratic Party of JFK is nothing like today's Dems. There are Progressives in the Republican Party as well, John McCain is one, they're bent destroying America as well, just at a slower pace.

Look at the imagery there. Before, it was about politics and disagreements and just plain old "your idea is dumb." Now one side accuses the other of "hating America" or wanting to see it "destroyed" or brought down. This country is being whipped up through hate and fear and scare tactics appealing to base emotion and not logic. It's disgusting. And the sheep eat it up.

This type of militaristic and apocalyptic hate speech is doing more harm to the country than any political party's platform ever will.

Hey, I had one of those for dinner recently.

No, wait, it was a Chimichanga.

I'm a godless socialist Muslim who eats illegal Messican food. FEAR ME!

300,000 to 500,000 ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us...cs/29beck.html

Or 87,000. Or 300,000. Or 500,000. Crowd size doesn't make something any more legitimate or illegitimate. Who knows, who cares. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...93-503544.html

The 300,000 estimate in the CBS articlle is cited as being conservative (pardon the pun).

Now we get an estimate by the freakin New York Times and some aireal photo 'experts' that arent even 1/3 of CBS's 'conservative' estimate. Not to say that NYT is 'in the bag' for the liberals or anything... :haha:

But evidently there are alot more pepole that 'care' than you would be comfortable with.

You don't understand the magnitude of the crap I don't give. Unless it's an election, it means diddly.

Let's hope the Dems think the same way and ignore the momentum that the restructured right has been building until it means more than diddly.

Don't know what to tell you. I can't get that scared or excited about politics anymore. It's one big circus show with corporate overlords pulling the strings on both sides. I've become quite disillusioned with the whole thing.

Other than your apparent disdain for corporations*, you'd fit right in as a libertarian:DL I can see where you're coming from, though. I used to hold many of the same opinions you do until I became disillusioned with the system. The 541t just don't seem fair, does it? All this inequality isn't right. How does one ever justify a CEO making more than a hundred times what a line worker does? How does one justify any associated circumstance? How could a responsible person even allow such things to happen? You'd think some sense of human decency would compel them to redistribute their own wealth. How much does one freaking person or family need, anyway? From here, I could go on to further describe inequality but I think you have pretty much the same view.

IMO, you'd be pretty much on the mark (no pun intended) if everyone was as thoughtful and intelligent and compassionate as you. Problem is, they aren't. Without diving into human biology, evolution, sociology, and philosophy, you can see this, even if you don't know why. If you'll excuse the somewhat incorrect simile, I feel like an engineer explaining electronics or physics to a brilliant, yet decidedly optimistic visionary. The stuff just don't work that way. People like you don't get elected to office, and they don't make policies.

Before I go on, are you with me so far?


* - For libertarians, this is a case of misplaced blame. One cannot rationally expect a company or the people who comprise the same to do anything other than what is beneficial to themselves. That includes giving them the means to outlaw competition through licensures, quotas, and taxes.