Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"That, more than anything else, suggests just how conservative the majority of Americans are."-- ehillesum
You're absolutely correct. That 46% vote total certainly does suggest how conservative the majority of Americans are.
Why do you think you Majority Folks lose so many elections?
I would direct your attention to this Open Left post:
Still, ideological labels do not always predict opinions about key policy issues. For example, about half of Americans who describe their political views as conservative say that all (24%) or some (27%) of the tax cuts passed under George W. Bush should be repealed. More than four-in-ten conservatives (43%) say that abortion should be legal in some or all cases. On the other hand, nearly half of self-described liberals (49%) favor more offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. waters.
Note the first (tax cuts) has 51% in favor of "some" or "all" agreeing with the repealing of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
The entire post is worth reading but suffice to say "reality" is never quite what you think it is.
http://tinyurl.com/5ksmko
Rather than going w/ your "my gut tells me that me and my fellow god-fearin', gun-lovin' gay-hatin' bigots are in the majority", why don't you try looking at some actual data?
http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report
or click sig
You are simply wrong.
I defy you to prove me wrong in the following general values:
1. The majority of people in this country want us OUT of Iraq.
2. The majority want us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. The majority want peace, diplomacy and the end to unilateral Bush Doctrinesque wars.
3. The majority of people are pro-choice.
4. The majority want some form of gun control - not necessary banning, but certainly control of what types of weapons are available, to whom, and in what way they are sold. That's a form of control.
5. The majority want some form of reasonable immigration laws.
6. The majority want a balanced budget or fiscal responsibility.
7. The majority want affordable health care, equal rights, equal pay, more jobs, some protectionism, clean air, clean water, ecological responsibiity.
8. The majority affordable college, better education, better transportation, safer infrastructures.
9. The majority are willing to pay more taxes to see the above accomplished.
So what part of this is "conservative" and what part is "liberal." I defy you to label any of it such. I defy you to make this about labels. It's about common sense.
I never skip when I do see Ya's writ.
Next time you go to a North Shore,
please let me know. I know a Place.
It's on a beach. A tree grows there.
Seriously, and it grows in a home.
My son stayed there as a farmer.
So did I, as a vet-goner-losers.
Ay. I know few great 'outcaste'.
Locals in Hawaii are wonderful.
Steer clears of fancy Honolulu.
My son was on de' Taro Farms.
Taro was the staple potato crop.
Honest. A free place on a shore?
Oho-O meet the good old yokel.
Do the boogie in the conical hat.
Cook Taro on a open beach fire.
Stoke up a fire. Relax. Ah! Daze.
Well, I's sure in the `de troubles,
and that's A-okay. But, how else,
how else do human possum learn?
Somehow, this conversation about Disney Princesses got sexualized. Who would have guessed?
It's ethics_professor and Pedinska's fault.
True.
When governors are put in the position of appointing a replacement for an elected representative, they face a problem of a potential partial loss in perceived legitimacy. If they appoint an unknown, the public can very easily become suspicious that their process of representation has been corrupted by what might be inside dealings of one sort or another. One way for governors to appeal to a semblance of demonstrated popular support for their choices of replacement federal legislators (perhaps always Senators?) is to make use of family names or family members known for their service to the state or at least to the country.
for ehillesum, note the first (tax cuts) has 51% in favor of "some" or "all" agreeing with the repealing of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy,
that this was among self-identified conservatives.
Also, why these complicated screen names? Better to have timothy3 so we can abbreviate to T3 (hasta la vista ... well, you know the rest).
Coinciding with the arrival of Obama and his deputies in Washington, the Center for Defense Information is releasing “America’s Defense Meltdown -- Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress,” a primer on what is wrong with our defense system written by men with long and honorable experience in the bowels of the military services and Pentagon bureaucracy. The book’s editor, Winslow Wheeler is familiar to readers of this site for his acrid and knowledgeable commentaries on the defense establishment. CounterPuncher Andrew Cockburn interviews him about the book and its message.
AB: You say in your preface that “the vast majority, perhaps even all, of Congress, the general officer corps of the armed forces, top management of American defense manufacturers, prominent members of Washington’s think tank community and nationally recognized ‘defense journalists’ will hate this book.” Why is that?
WW: The conventional wisdom amongst the elite in Washington is that they have done a pretty good job of taking care of our national defense, that things may be a little expensive but we have the best armed forces in the world, perhaps even in history, and we do the best for our troops by giving them the world’s most sophisticated equipment which is, of course, the most effective. We have, so the elite asserts, demonstrated our ability by knocking off Saddam Hussein’s forces twice and are in general a model to the rest of the world on how to build equipment and provide for forces.
That’s all crap. None of it is true. None of it stands up to scrutiny. Let’s tick through it. First of all, we now have the largest defense budget in inflation-adjusted dollars since the end of World War Two. That has bought the smallest military establishment we have had since the end of World War Two. We now have fewer navy combat ships and submarines, fewer combat aircraft and fewer army fighting units than we have had at any point since the end of World War Two. Our major items of equipment are on average older than at any time during this period. Key elements of our fighting forces are badly trained. In other words we’re getting less for more. People point to the two wars against Saddam Hussein. His armed forces were pitifully incompetent and even against them in both the 1991 and 2003 gulf wars we demonstrated serious deficiencies while overestimating how good we were.
much more, click on sig ...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
