A Honeymoon in Vegas For Obama?

Some 45 percent of CWU members are Hispanic and that also could help Obama.

While I have not seen raw data on the actual breakdown of demographics It would not surprise me that the Hispanic vote might break for Obama. Once again if you visit his website you will see that his Policy on Immigration is this last years immigration bill Cut and Pasted onto his website.

The house on the hill, everybody gets a free ride, lets legalize them all and invite a trillion more of them to the country. OH and once they get here then lets give em free medical and dental. No taxes and a well above minimum wage job. Oh he does say we should secure the border but does not say how. At least the past immigration bill was a bit specific on that.

I hope he talks about his immigration policy in the state of Harry "We lost the War" Reid. Lets hear some more specific proposals Obama. YOU are the candidate of CHANGE. YOU are the candidate who promises to UNITE US.

How is cutting and pasting the previous Immigration bill that caused national strife and animosity going to UNITE anyone except the illegal aliens in this country to fraudulently vote for you?

Come on Obama? Splain to us how you are the uniter. The Great White/Black/Hispanic/Asian/forgive me if I left anybody out HOPE. Splain to me how your FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVE agenda is going to unite a nation that is already polarized because we are being led by a FAR RIGHT AGENDA.

Somebody--

I haven't heard anything FAR LEFT from Obama. Maybe you could enlighten me with a few links?

Thanks in advance!

Valid points Somebody. I would also like to see more of the "meat" of Obama's change angle. But there is a large issue looming here. Why is Obama more popular than many of the punditry thought last summer? It's because a sizable portion of the American electorate feels hopeless. Some people scoff at that. But hope is a driving force in the human condition. The average American can't break down foreign and domestic policy to the minute details. But they can be motivated to do things. They can be inspired to do things. For some reason, Obama has that rolling with him. Only time will tell if that will roll him into the White House but his campaign is a statement on a sizable portion of the American psyche. And those Americans aren't stupid, lazy, or irresponsible for feeling hopeless.

I haven't heard anything FAR LEFT from Obama. Maybe you could enlighten me with a few links?

I know you havent heard anything far left from Obama because he has not had to splain himself. He just gives the same speech over and over. Hope, change and Im the cure without specifics on anything.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

click on issues and enjoy the reading. It is the progressives dream platform.

Somebody: Progressive does not equal far Left just as Conservative is not Far Right.

The Far Left bombs animal clinics and spikes trees so loggers' saws backfire, just as the Far Right harasses and kills abortion doctors.

You know he's doing something right when others accuse Obama of being too centrist and wanting to work w the R's. It says more of the accusers than the accused.

Somebody--

All you've got is a link to the Obama website and a movement of the goalposts from FAR LEFT to progressive?

Splain yourself?

Senator Obama's issues pages read like something that a high school debate team would have put together. After being a legislator for a decade, it seems like Senator Obama still has not learned about ways and means. Look at a small issue like lead blood levels. Senator Obama proposes that all day care facilities be lead free in five years. But how is the federal government going to check all of the day care centers. All that initiative will be is part of a block grant to the states to do some non-specific thing but will end up just pay for more government jobs. I guess federalism only means not doing anything of which the teachers unions disapprove.

The more you look at his issues page, he does not look like he is any better at sweating the details that President Bush.

"Yet another state without much electoral clout is taking on an out-sized significance"

The megastates and especially too-blue New York and California do not define the USA politically!

SD: If you look at any of the candidates' web pages, they are short on specifics- for a very good reasons- the details will have to be worked out in the legislative process.

This is akin to criticizing the moon shot as folly because when JFK proposed it he did not give a detailed account of rocketry.

Yet, if you look at Edwards' info, he's very detailed, but most people Right of Center- ahem, SD, DLS, Somebody, et al, would go the other way, and say he's too inflexible, or just disagree with his plan and label him a Commie, Socialist, or 'Far Left.'

In short, such a comment reveals more about you than it does about Obama.

Superdestroyer--

You're saying Obama is the next George W Bush?

Words fail me.

Heres a pretty good definition of what today is being billed as the progressive movement. Liberals who want to run away from the liberal tag.

“At its core,” John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress writes, “progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society.”(Whose values? I thought we were rupugnated by those conservative values and that we ought keep those values at home?)

Progressivism is practical and driven by the values that define America morality(Oh so progressives just want to change who is in charge of defining morality in America.) and have made our country stronger and better. It’s a dynamic concept giving the leadership of an up-and-coming generation of politicos – you – the tools to make this nation’s future brighter for all.

Notice something here? I do. It is amazingly vague. Much as Obama has tried hard to be.

Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. “It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept … that accepts the world as dynamic.(This is exactly why the democratic party is undergoing a war of wills as the progressives attempt to take over the party from the liberals.)” Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

So as you can see here the democratic party has a very tough road to hoe as they deal not only with the GOP but now must ever increasingly deal with a rabbid and vocal internal group who is actually voicing disdain with liberalism because even it is too slow and to laborious and does not want to define morality to the satisfaction of progressives.

Also I disagree with one persons assessment of far left and far right......Those he point out are the radical left and right..not the far left and right

Actually Obama's website is much more detailed then most because he has not been around long enough for anyone to know what he stands for.

When the New York Times political blog compared their lifetime scores they came up with the following ranking:

Senator Barack Obama......................84.3
Representative Dennis Kucinich........79.4
Senator Christopher J. Dodd .............79.2
Senator Hiliary Rodham Clinton ......78.8
Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr...............76.8

Barack Obama the most Liberal senator in congress.

Obama has a 95 percent liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Reform, a liberal advocacy group that ranks all members of Congress. Yet he is often portrayed as a centrist.


2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Small Business Association 28 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Retail Federation 17 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 12 percent in 2005-2006.

I can find this in 100's and 100's of places all over the web. Obama is nearly the most liberal member in the entire government and HE is going to UNITE US?

A centrist he is not. A moderate he is not. His record proves it. His words only try to conceal his record.

George,

The question should be asked of every candidate: to they sweat the details, does their staff work hard on the details, do they have a firm gasp of the details of policy, can they tolerate honest brokers on their staffs; and last, are they good enough to eliminate that policy.

One of the reasons that people are upset with virtually all of the candidates is that none of them seem to sweat the details. Look at John Edwards want to nationalize teachers pay (a thoroughly local issue) but does not ever discuss the mechanism that he will use to do it.

I have been helping my daughter with student congress and have been amazed that in high school AP government, that the mechanisms of government are never discussed. No wonder so many people think that you wave a magic wand and the government does things.

The only way to raise teachers pay like John Edwards proposes (or eliminate lead in child care centers like Senator Obama proposes) is for the federal government to force the states to establish a state program, tie other federal funding to compliance, and them force the states to report their compliance (sounded like NCLB to me).

People need to understand how the government works or people will always be unreasonable in their expectations.

Superdestroyer--

Are you in favor of legally using lead-based paint in child care centers?

Are you in favor of letting those child care centers that have lead-based paint keep it due to economic reasons? Constitutional reasons?

Are you expecting a market solution to the problem of lead-based paint in child care centers?

I ask these questions because you generally seem to attack Democrats. However, when challenged about the competence of Republicans, you concede their lack of competence.

So: do you think all problems are intractable and all proposed solutions too expensive or otherwise too philosophically incorrect?

Thank you for your courtesy.

George,

Regulation of child care centers is a local concern. If the residents of Illinois want to regulate the hell out of them, let them. If the residents of New Hampshire do not really care, that is OK too.

First, of all, lead in day care centers has more to do will hold buildings (like in Chicago) and in new growth areas such as Dallas. So why apply a national solution? There is already lead paint rules in effect and they are local regulations.

You cold also say that the regulations should be risked based (what is the risks and how much money does it take to elimnate it). However, the left does not really like risk based regulations because it helps promote Nuclear Power and decreases the power of the EPA.

There is no reasons why a presidential candidate should be making a national proposal on lead in day care centers.

Superdestroyer--

If there are already local (I guess you actually mean state) regulations, how are they working? I gather not so well?

If they're not working so well, could that possibly be a reason why a Presidential candidate would make a national proposal? Not that you'd have to agree with such a proposal, but it is possible that enough local failures add up to a national problem.

Which returns me to my previous questions--is your objection based on cost? Based on Constitutional reasons? Are you expecting a market solution?

SD: You are hilarious.

On more than one occasion you have blasted the NYT, as many on the Right do, unless it serves your purpose.

You also confuse moderate or centrist in actions with liberal in beliefs. Do you really believe that Hillary could work better w Republicans than Obama could? Please.

As for your definition of progressivism- any definition will be a general description. Do you know anything of the function of words, because your ignorance screams no.

Let's go to Webster's-

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism

liberalism

Main Entry:
lib·er·al·ism Listen to the pronunciation of liberalism
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1819

1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

Hmm.... a bit more specific- now its antipodes:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservatism:

con·ser·va·tism Listen to the pronunciation of conservatism
Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1832

1capitalized a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party b: the Conservative party2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change



So what have the above posts by SD proved? he takes things out of context, picks and chooses what info he regards and disregrads, and has a problem with accepted definitions of words.

Great news- this qualifies you to be a commenter on FOX News.

"Progressives" [sic] are liberals well to the left, close to radicals. For example, they will often mischaracterize the liberal media as "corporate right-wing media" [sic], call Reagan, Thatcher, and many other ordinary moderate to conservative people "far right" [sic], and sometimes place the Democratic Party to the center and even somewhat right of center(!).

Cosmo as usual I have no clue what you are talking about, other then rambling some incoherent babble. I think you might be directing your diatribe at me and if that is the case let me respond.

An extended definition of Liberalism and conservativism dated in the 1800's is the best you can do to defend Obama and Crucify Hillary? I thought I was talking about progressives?

From the Daily Kos.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

Also let me respond by saying that I quoted directly from the center for American Progress. It is they who laid out their own definition of progressive. Not me.

DLS: 'call Reagan, Thatcher, and many other ordinary moderate to conservative people "far right"'

Reagan and the Iron Bitch as ordinary moderates? You did that just to make me laugh. Thanks.

SD: Of course you don't know what I'm talking of, because I write in English, the common language of this nation, not your world.

And, you trust Daily Kos over Merriam-Websters for definitional grace?

Now, the only question I have is, like Abbott and Costello, which of you gets the higher % of the comedy team revenue, cuz you two are on a roll!

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/progressive



Main Entry:
2progressive
Function:
noun
Date:
1846

1 a: one that is progressive b: one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action2capitalized : a member of any of various U.S. political parties: as a: a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans; specifically : bull moose b: a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c: a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948


DLS and SD: note the word MODERATE, as in TMV. Thus, when DLS types '"Progressives" [sic] are liberals well to the left, close to radicals. For example, they will often mischaracterize the liberal media as "corporate right-wing media" [sic], call Reagan, Thatcher, and many other ordinary moderate to conservative people "far right" [sic], and sometimes place the Democratic Party to the center and even somewhat right of center(!).' he actually reverses the spectrum- liberals are to the left of Progressives.

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates.

The point I have made over and over is not that Obama is the evil. What is the evil is that Obama is allowing the wave of progressives to sweep him into the White House along with traditional liberal support. It is this very thing which is likely to splinter the democratic party and put it in even worse shape then the GOP is currently undergoing.

Yet when I point out his extremely liberal voting record it is very evident that given this and the progressives claiming of his soul:

Obama is not a uniter. He is not the candidate of change and he will not accomplish anything from his position of extremes. That extreme being his extremely liberal record and the extreme nature of the progressive movement in this country. This is evident in his limited record and his failure to reject the progressive movement that he only partially supports but is willing to ride to the White House.

1846 Cosmo? At the time Teddy Roosevelt adopted the progressive platform and took on the trusts and the big corporations there is and was some truth to the moderate stance. As with all things. Progressive movement in this country today is anything but moderate.

Now, the only question I have is, like Abbott and Costello, which of you gets the higher % of the comedy team revenue, cuz you two are on a roll!

Do you know anything of the function of words, because your ignorance screams no.

Thank you for your moderate words of encouragement. I shall self flagellate until I have whooped some sense into my dimwitted mind.

Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates.

This sure sounds like you Cosmo. Your constantly telling us to vote for a third party candidate yet in this definiton of TODAYS progressive I dont see much here that would be moderate in policy.

It's called reading Somebody- the 1846 refers to the first known usage or coinage of the word. The definition itself references later permutations. The point is that Progressives are more moderate than Liberals, much less Leftists or Far Leftists.

You can bastardize terms all you want, but a common language is something that is larger than yourself.

In short, you can call a Girl Scout a co all you desire, but if you touch her udders, you're going to jail as a pedophile. Got it?

Your above definition demonstrates, yet again, you are in your own world. And that's not me, but Webster's talking.

'Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates.

This sure sounds like you Cosmo. Your constantly telling us to vote for a third party candidate yet in this definiton of TODAYS progressive I dont see much here that would be moderate in policy.'

Um. John Edwards is a Progressive. I am an Independent. Independents are disillusioned with the duopoly. Thus why they are 'INDEPENDENT.'

Now, don't force me to get Daniel Webster on yr ass, yet again!

All I can say Cosmo is MOVEON.ORG Very moderate group for sure.

Direct and live from Moveon.orgs website:

MoveOn's launched a major campaign to mobilize voters, run ads, and elect a progressive president in 2008.

Hows the air up their in your alternate word twisting universe? Oh wait maybe Daniel Webster can turn them into conservatives with the next posting by cosmo.

Let's see: from the above Websters definition of Conservative: a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.

All of this is 100% anathema to being anti-abortion, involving oneself in end of life issues, outlawing drug usage, etc. yet how many Right Wing Extremists call themselves Conservative, when they are clearly not? How many Supreme Court judges call themselves conservatives when they do not even read the Constitution, nor respect stare decisis?

You can call yourself Halle berry, but I don't think you'd equal her in a bikini, no?

In short, you, nor any other single person, gets to derange standard definitions to suit your own agenda- not the Far Left nor Far Right. Because they bastardize speech does not mean you are right in doing so.

Progressives are definitionally and historically more center than liberals. Don't like. Too bad. The definition preceded you, and will outlast you.

In short, your opinion on the matter means bupkus.

Progressives are definitionally and historically more center than liberals. Don't like. Too bad. The definition preceded you, and will outlast you.

Oh I just love a good history debate with Daniel(Noah) Webster.

Well here is something you might not like. The progressive movement during the turn of the century included the socialist party which at one time had over 56 mayors elected to office.

Now square with me if you can how this moderate, mildly liberal progressive movement would embrace the socialist party into its fold?



No Cosmo you can try to sell your flimsy argument by turning to the good book(can I hear an amen!) for your definition but it is not MY definition that we are talking about. I am using established definitions of the progressive movement by the people themselves who claim the progressive movement as their own.

Which actually brings me back to my point and reinforces the validity of the argument that I was trying to make. The progressives are attempting to hijack the Democratic party with their far left leaning excesses cloaked in double talk,(Wow Just like Cosmo has been doing) mirrors and now are fuming because they have been called to task and now must explain themselves.

So you'll have to show me some empirical proof besides a quote from Daniel (Noah)Websters dictionary to then build an imaginary argument against an establishment that does not exist except in Daniel(Noah) Websters world.

Daniel Webster and Noah Webster were not the same person.

Thats true Geroge. But many attribute the Writing of the original Webster dictionary to Daniel Webster when in fact it was Noah Webster who wrote the dictionary before it was bought out my Merriam in I believe 1831. Don't quote me on that date but its close.

Somebody: 'Now square with me if you can how this moderate, mildly liberal progressive movement would embrace the socialist party into its fold?'

Rather easily, if you had read my prior comment: 'All of this is 100% anathema to being anti-abortion, involving oneself in end of life issues, outlawing drug usage, etc. yet how many Right Wing Extremists call themselves Conservative, when they are clearly not? How many Supreme Court judges call themselves conservatives when they do not even read the Constitution, nor respect stare decisis?'

As you have shown, others abuse words as freely as you do, w/o knowing their meaning.

'I am using established definitions of the progressive movement by the people themselves who claim the progressive movement as their own.'

And Stalin said he was 'a revolutionary for the people.' Was he? The Wobblies claimed to be decent supporters of the working class. Were they? The KKK claimed to be defending whites from black depredations. Did they?

When you type things like the above you show yourself to be detached from reality, which is why you are so routinely debunked, by me and many others.

Again, you nor a bunch of fringe extremists do not decide the definitions of words. The CP and Wobblies were not Progressives, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were. Anti-abortionists are not Conservatives, Goldwater was. It may not fit into your universe, but that's a small vessel where the rest of us will not fit, and even if some could, I doubt many would want to.

Again, you nor a bunch of fringe extremists do not decide the definitions of words.

Oh?

But we do. Cosmo. We do.

Conservativism is described thusly: Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement. Therefore all those who embrace conservative prinipals are inclusive in the conservative MOVEMENT. Webster is not the referee. He does not distinguish who or what they are but Rather they be moderates, extremist or abnormal they are inclusive in the movement.

Thus your postulate:Anti-abortionists are not Conservatives, Goldwater was. Is greviously in error. Because a movement is inclusive. You choose to exclude only those which fit your bizarre definition.

Thus we find that if you address the progressive MOVEMENT you will see that it is nothing more then an element that makes up the liberal movement. The empirical evidence does not support a moderate definiton but rather supports a far left and somewhat radical agenda.

But thank you for responding. At least you are taking the time to think. That sometimes seems to be beyond most progressives.

A movement can be as inclusive as it wants to be, but if it violates its own stated tenet, such as being conservative and violating the privacy rights of an individual, it ceases to be conservative.

Similarly, when a so-called liberal wants to ban a book like Huck Finn on PC grounds, they forfeit the claim of liberalism.

The definition is not bizarre, your misinterpretation of it is. Such as in this paragraph, when you conflate terms wantonly: 'Thus we find that if you address the progressive MOVEMENT you will see that it is nothing more then an element that makes up the liberal movement. The empirical evidence does not support a moderate definition but rather supports a far left and somewhat radical agenda.'

I always think. Would the same was true on the other end, and this thread would be a bit shorter.

And again, answer these q's:

And Stalin said he was 'a revolutionary for the people.' Was he? The Wobblies claimed to be decent supporters of the working class. Were they? The KKK claimed to be defending whites from black depredations. Did they?

One has nothing to do with the other. Certainly in the context of this discussion it is spurious and has no meaning. We are not discussing communism we are discussing progressivism. You have already rejected socialism even though history shows it was an inclusive element within the progressive movement.

You continue to evade and duck the question I put to you. Show me the evidence that the progressive movement within the liberal party is moderate. A definition from the dictionary does not make it so. The fact that your entire argument is based upon a single definition from the dictionary while I put forth empirical data to support my position suggests that you have no answer other then to continue to twist logic and change the subject by introducing illogical illustrations.

Which brings me to my final point. You continue to use the analogy of the communists and the KKK as bastardizing their respective movements.

I would suggest to you that the progressives of today are also bastardizing the term by implying that they are moderate when clearly the empirical data suggests that they are not. It is not I who claims them moderate. It is you. The burden to prove this hypothesis rests on your shoulders not mine.

Once again I repeat because the dictionary and Cosmo claims that the current progressive movement is moderate does not make it so.

So, you again avoid the q.

Refute this statement: 'A movement can be as inclusive as it wants to be, but if it violates its own stated tenet, such as being conservative and violating the privacy rights of an individual, it ceases to be conservative.'

You have not and cannot.

'You have already rejected socialism even though history shows it was an inclusive element within the progressive movement.'

You are, as usual, conversing w yrself. We were not talking of the Communist movement, but the definitions of progressive vs. liberal. I showed you the def, and that progressives are more mainstream than liberals.

'I would suggest to you that the progressives of today are also bastardizing the term by implying that they are moderate when clearly the empirical data suggests that they are not.'

You have not provided any data, much less empirical. W/o Googling, can you even define empirical?

I have not claimed progressives moderate- that is what defines them. You have chosen fringe groups who misuse words as freely as you do, and point to the exceptions to define your rule.

But, logic does not work like that- not in this cosmos.

'Once again I repeat because the dictionary and Cosmo claims that the current progressive movement is moderate does not make it so.'

Well, yes it does. But radicals who call themselves progressive or moderate are not, if their actions belie the claim, just as Stalin was certainly no 'champion of the oppressed.'

You're about 0 for 17, Somebody.

Refute this statement: 'A movement can be as inclusive as it wants to be, but if it violates its own stated tenet, such as being conservative and violating the privacy rights of an individual, it ceases to be conservative.'

Actually I have been ignoring this statement for a reason but its obvious that you dont read much and fail to comprehend the English language. However you do have googling the dictionary down quite well. You have yet to grasp the fact that you have been supporting my argument from the beginning so I've grown weary of discussing this with you.

Since you keep coming back to it. Okay. No your statement is absolutely correct. Those who are claiming the mantle of progressives are much as your communist buddy or the kkk. They have violated the tenets of the progressive mantle and therefore have most definitely bastardized their own movement.

To be sure. Those claiming the loudest the mantle of the progressive movement are in fact NOT PROGRESSIVES at all but are simply bastardizing a term that makes them appear moderate.

As I previously pointed out "Heres a pretty good definition of what today is being billed as the progressive movement. Liberals who want to run away from the liberal tag"

If so then that begs the question. If they are NOT progressives then what are they? Its obvious in Barak Obama's voting record and history in the state senate that they are nothing more then Far left liberals trying to hide from the liberal mantle by usurping the progressive term.

This Cosmo has been my entire thesis from the beginning and it was evidence that I pointed to that supported this claim.

Your argument has supported my claim from the beginning but I only continued the discussion to see how deeply you would actually go to attack something I never said and never intended and never implied.

Once again you have proven nothing except your anger at anything and everyone who would dare disagree with your superior intellect. But I do find it amusing to engage in debate with someone of your obviously limited mental capacity who reads the dictionary the way some people read the bible. (can I hear a Daniel Webster)

'Okay. No your statement is absolutely correct. '

Did it really need to go on this long to admit your error?

'Those claiming the loudest the mantle of the progressive movement are in fact NOT PROGRESSIVES at all but are simply bastardizing a term that makes them appear moderate.'

The term does not make them moderate, an action does. Try to followe along.

'This Cosmo has been my entire thesis from the beginning and it was evidence that I pointed to that supported this claim.'

Except it wasn't. You tried to confuse terminology and got swept up in your own web.

'Once again you have proven nothing except your anger at anything and everyone who would dare disagree with your superior intellect.'

No anger, just a willingness to help. When you are next confused tying your shoes or going to the bathroom, just ask, Try not to make your life more difficult than it need be.

So let me be sure I understand your final position. Obama is a moderate because the dictionary says so? Is that what you are saying?

No. Obama was not mentioned. Again, you are arguing with yourself.

Do you ever even read what others type, or do you dyslexically rearrange the letters so that your left & right sides can work out online what in the real world keeps you up at night?

You also confuse moderate or centrist in actions with liberal in beliefs. Do you really believe that Hillary could work better w Republicans than Obama could? Please.

My oh my. I see and what other fables are you going to spin tonight?

You are the Aesopiate. Look at any of my posts, and I'm anti-Hillary.

Ganga must be good in the night.

That explains alot.

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic...

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic...

That noise in your head is you.

Well its pretty obvious that you are anti Hillary. This topic was never about Hillary. Its about the bastardization of the progressive movement by those who pretend to be moderate in attempting to support BO.

You have willingly argued that those who support Obama are not only Communists, but that they are also members of the KKK. Which seems odd to me but well I guess everyone wants to get on the Mindblown express and taste some of that stuff Obama used to sample in his younger days.

But at least we know that Obama's candidacy depends on people like Cosmo blowing so much smoke that no one can see what he really stands for. That of course has and will continue to be his talking point.

The thread was about Obama.

'You have willingly argued that those who support Obama are not only Communists, but that they are also members of the KKK.'

I have not. It's called reading. Show me where I ever claimed Obama gets support from KKKers.

I blow no smoke, but you obvious do blow.