4092 dead in Iraq

[Screw_Michigan]

FUCK YOU --ASSHOLE !!
I pay for everything I get---how about you ??
FUCK you and the horse you rode in on !!
Stick it up your ass !!
want more ??




FUCK YOU !!

Thanks for checking in, Pikkkle. Now get fucked.

[Diego in Seattle]

While you're at it--check out the US
Constitution and see where it says the federal government is in the business of providing
"services" (like health care) to its citizens.

It's right next to the section where it says citizens have the right to own assault weapons.

Try again, you shiteating dumbfuck.

Why would I want to do that when I was right in the first place, assclown?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Make a fucking example of Toodle. Smack the fuck outta him. Or enlist the aid of others: there is no shame in that

I beg to differ.

[Tom In VA]

Why would I want to do that when I was right in the first place, assclown?

On what planet or in which country. The Constitution yields to the states and individuals their right to carry arms. It doesn't say "musket" and it doesn't say "Unless technology makes an automatic weapon".

Please point out anywhere in the Constitution where "free healthcare" is even implied.

[War Wagon]

I didn't come back here to be nice to any fuckers here...

Who the fuck are you "here" and why should any of us care why you came back "here"? I only asked that question so that I could use the word "here" twice in the same sentence.

You WILL fucking learn. Frame your response in any way that isn't unconditional obsequious capitulation and your lessons will be severe.

What?

Check out the big words from this egghead. Morte, whoever the fuck you are, it helps if you use those big words in a coherent sentence that in some roundabout way makes sense.

obsequious capitulation? Congrats on using 5 vowells in one word. You musta' been saving that one up for just such an occasion, context be damned.

That right there was enough to make Dins head explode, and we don't want that to happen.

[Terry in Crapchester]

When McCain wins, . . .

Wishful thinking, or do you just spend all of your time on this site?

The Republican Party hasn't been in this bad a situation at the national level since '76, and Obama is a much stronger candidate than Carter ever dreamed of being. This is the most likely Democratic win in my lifetime.

And yes, I'm just one person, but there are a lot of folks who study this stuff for a living who happend to agree with me on this. A few links you might wish to consider:

http://www.electoral-vote.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11090.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PSUFAN]

I think PSUFan needs to take a look at the US budget. While you're at it--check out the US
Constitution and see where it says the federal government is in the business of providing
"services" (like health care) to its citizens. Check back when you get an education.

Just...wow.

[PSUFAN]

FUCK YOU --ASSHOLE !!
I pay for everything I get---how about you ??
FUCK you and the horse you rode in on !!
Stick it up your ass !!
want more ??




FUCK YOU !!

Come out from behind the troll, Pacedog.

[Mister Bushice]

FUCK YOU --ASSHOLE !!
I pay for everything I get---how about you ??
FUCK you and the horse you rode in on !!
Stick it up your ass !!
want more ??




FUCK YOU !!

Ok, I din't read this thread, but RACK whoever tried to take wolfman for a walk down coronary lane.

[poptart]

The Republican Party hasn't been in this bad a situation at the national level since '76, and Obama is a much stronger candidate than Carter ever dreamed of being. This is the most likely Democratic win in my lifetime.

With nearly five months 'til the election, TONS of time exists for either candidate (or spouse, friend, used to be friend, etc. ...) to step on his dick, so who knows what madness will happen before November.
A terror attack?
Wouldn't surprise me.

But at any rate, as a Republican candidate, McLame is about a 3 on a scale of 1-10.
That ain't good.
'The base' (not felice) isn't eager to make a showing for him.
Also very not good.

The PROBLEM, however, for the dems is that instead of putting out a middle-leaning candidate who would prolly wipe the floor with McLame, they have spit out a candidate who is (1) as far left as it gets, and (2) who happens to be carrying a bit of baggage.

The GOP is gonna make sure both of those points are hammered home to the American people.

Don't bet all your money.
Save some for 2012.

[BSmack]

The PROBLEM, however, for the dems is that instead of putting out a middle-leaning candidate who would prolly wipe the floor with McLame, they have spit out a candidate who is (1) as far left as it gets, and (2) who happens to be carrying a bit of baggage.

The Dems could nominate Jessie Helms and the GOP would pillory him as an unreconstructed leftist. Peddle that bullshit somewhere else.

[poptart]

The Dems could nominate Jessie Helms and the GOP would pillory him as an unreconstructed leftist. Peddle that bullshit somewhere else.

hahaha

Obama's voting record is what it is.

Way left.


The end.

[PSUFAN]

I think the Dems made the right choice, at least among the folks that were on the ballot. I think Clinton would have gotten slugged by any Republican. I think there is deep-seated distaste for Clinton in the general populace that has not asserted itself thus far. The heavily Dem state of NY and the primaries have not exposed her to the general voting public.

[poptart]

Very true about what would have happened if it were Clinton.

[BSmack]

The Dems could nominate Jessie Helms and the GOP would pillory him as an unreconstructed leftist. Peddle that bullshit somewhere else.

hahaha

Obama's voting record is what it is.

Way left.

The end.

Thank you for proving my point. You don't know shit about Obama's voting record. All you know is that your talking points honks told you he's a liberal so now you wouldn't vote for him if he and Michelle Obama came to your hut and served you roast dog personally.

[poptart]

You are quite often the biggest 'tard on this board, guy.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MadRussian]

You are quite often the biggest 'tard on this board, guy.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gonna have to rack Poptart

[BSmack]

You are quite often the biggest 'tard on this board, guy.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh boy, you went and googled a link.

Not that it shows you have any understanding of the link's contents, only that you can successfully type "Obama + liberal + rankings" into a search engine.

[poptart]

What deep understanding of the link's content do you think I'm missing?

In merely stating the obvious, I said that Obama is about as far left as it gets.
His voting record shows that to be fact.

This is not a point to argue.

The fact that you often DO argue such points is why I unfortunately had to accurately label you as a 'tard.

[Smackie Chan]

I unfortunately had to accurately label you as a 'tard.

Now don't go all KFCPaul on us there, 'tart, by taking credit for what's not rightly yours. Plenty of others have gone before you in applying that label to BeenSmacked. C'mon now.

[BSmack]

What deep understanding of the link's content do you think I'm missing?

In merely stating the obvious, I said that Obama is about as far left as it gets.
His voting record shows that to be fact.

This is not a point to argue.

I see you're still unable or unwilling to demonstrate what makes a vote "liberal" as opposed to "conservative". God forbid you actually be accountable for your methodologies.

[Smackie Chan]

What deep understanding of the link's content do you think I'm missing?

In merely stating the obvious, I said that Obama is about as far left as it gets.
His voting record shows that to be fact.

This is not a point to argue.

I see you're still unable or unwilling to demonstrate what makes a vote "liberal" as opposed to "conservative". God forbid you actually be accountable for your methodologies.

'tart's methodologies? The only methodology I see him using is Web research, which led him to the site for which he provided the link. The methodology used is explained here. What faults do you find with it? Have you crafted a better methodology, or has someone else that you can cite? Lead by example, dude. If you're going to demand accountability from others, be accountable yourself. How should a vote be classified as either "liberal" or "conservative"?

[BSmack]

I see you're still unable or unwilling to demonstrate what makes a vote "liberal" as opposed to "conservative". God forbid you actually be accountable for your methodologies.

'tart's methodologies? The only methodology I see him using is Web research, which led him to the site for which he provided the link. The methodology used is explained here. What faults do you find with it?

For starters, they do not explain how individual voting stances are quantified as "liberal" or "conservative".

Have you crafted a better methodology, or has someone else that you can cite? Lead by example, dude. If you're going to demand accountability from others, be accountable yourself. How should a vote be classified as either "liberal" or "conservative"?

My position is that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are entirely subjective. Therefore, trying to quantify a person's voting record using either of those terms is at best an exercise in futility. At worst, it is an attempt to deliberately deceive the reader.

[Smackie Chan]

My position is that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are entirely subjective. Therefore, trying to quantify a person's voting record using either of those terms is at best an exercise in futility. At worst, it is an attempt to deliberately deceive the reader.

That's a cop-out. Subjectivity can be eliminated through clear definitions of what constitutes liberalism and conservativism. Once that's done, categorizing votes as one or the other is pretty simple.

The clear definitions, however, can be tricky. Using a convenient source like dictionary.com yields the following:

conservativism - noun
a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes

liberalism - noun
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties

Not sure you'd get consensus (especially from those who consider themselves conservatives) that these definitions are correct. But the fact remains that once a set of definitions can be agreed upon, and I'm sure the NJ has done that, categorizing and scoring votes is no longer subjective and can accurately reflect philosophical differences among voters.

[Mikey]

I'm pretty sure that the NJ is not going strictly by those definitions.

More like

Who do we agree with.

vs.

Who do we disagree with.

Their definition of what's "best" in society may not agree with yours or mine, even though it probably does agree with poptart's and Cuda's.

[Smackie Chan]

I'm pretty sure that the NJ is not going strictly by those definitions.

Ya think?

[BSmack]

My position is that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are entirely subjective. Therefore, trying to quantify a person's voting record using either of those terms is at best an exercise in futility. At worst, it is an attempt to deliberately deceive the reader.

That's a cop-out. Subjectivity can be eliminated through clear definitions of what constitutes liberalism and conservativism. Once that's done, categorizing votes as one or the other is pretty simple.

That's like saying once you climb Mt. Everest, planting the flag at the top is pretty simple. The fact remains that finding a clear definition of the words liberal and conservative that fits all possible votes is just about impossible.

The clear definitions, however, can be tricky. Using a convenient source like dictionary.com yields the following:

conservativism - noun
a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes

liberalism - noun
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties

Not sure you'd get consensus (especially from those who consider themselves conservatives) that these definitions are correct. But the fact remains that once a set of definitions can be agreed upon, and I'm sure the NJ has done that, categorizing and scoring votes is no longer subjective and can accurately reflect philosophical differences among voters.

NJ didn't bother to publish their definitions, so you can't say what their consensus definition of those terms are.

[Mikey]

I'm pretty sure that the NJ is not going strictly by those definitions.

Ya think?

Did I leave out the

sin
MA

?

[Dinsdale]

If a person believes in the sanstity of the Constitution, they are "conservative."

If they don't, and embrace tratorism, they're a "liberal."


Pretty simple, really.

Obama = Liberal

Hillary = Liberal

McCain = Liberal


Glad I could help.

[Smackie Chan]

NJ didn't bother to publish their definitions, so you can't say what their consensus definition of those terms are.

I'll send 'em an email and see if they'll provide their definitions.

[Mikey]

If they don't, and embrace tratorism...

Tratorism?

I new concept I haven't heard of before.

Are these followers of Brazilian heavy metal?

[Dinsdale]

Tratorism?

See, back in the late 18th Century, Ameracan Englesh didn't have the letter "I."

It was a liberal consperacy.

[Goober McTuber]

If a person believes in the sanstity of the Constitution, they are "conservative."

It probably depends on how you define "sanstity".

[JayDuck]

You are quite often the biggest 'tard on this board, guy.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

liberal/conservative rankings are about eleventy-billion times more stupid than BCS rankings.

http://voteview.ucsd.edu/sen110.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/526/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On Jan. 31, 2008, five days before the Super Tuesday primaries, National Journal published an article headlined "Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007." The article said Obama had missed 33 of the 99 votes that were rated but that it was enough for a calculation. The magazine said McCain was not rated because he missed more than half the votes in the economic and foreign-policy categories.

Since Obama's rating was announced, McCain and other Republicans have frequently cited it to criticize Obama. Rep. Dan Boren, a Democrat from Oklahoma, cited the rating last week in explaining why he was not supporting Obama.

Yet other ratings don't show Obama as the Senate's top lefty.

He wasn't the top liberal in his two other years in the U.S. Senate according to National Journal. He was 10th-most liberal in 2006 and 16th in 2005.

The McCain campaign also cites a 2006 rating by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action that gave Obama 95 percent, which the campaign noted was the same as Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer.

But there's a little sleight of hand in that one. Although the McCain campaign is correct that Obama earned a 95 percent rating that year for voting the way ADA wanted, there were 10 senators who got more liberal scores than Obama, including Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Richard Durbin of Illinois. (In the latest ADA rating, for 2007, Obama missed five of the 20 votes the group scored, so he received a 75 percent rating. But he voted the way ADA wanted on each of the 15 votes he attended.)

Voteview.com, a site created by political scientists that plots lawmakers on a liberal-conservative scale based on their voting patterns, calculated there were nine senators more liberal than Obama in the current Congress, including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

“Obama is a liberal, but he’s not the most liberal,” said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor who runs the site.

Ratings from Congressional Quarterly don't measure liberal/conservative votes, but they show Obama is not quite as partisan as other senators.

In CQ’s calculation of party unity, which measures how often members vote with their party on bills where Republicans and Democrats split, Obama got a 97 percent rating last year. Ten Democrats had higher scores.

On votes where President Bush indicated his position, CQ found Obama supported the Republican president 40 percent of the time in 2007, which put Obama in the middle of the pack for Democrats. He supported Bush 49 percent the previous year.

[Mister Bushice]

Obama is a liberal, but he’s not the most liberal,” said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor who runs the site.

I fail to see how splitting hairs between "liberal" and "most liberal" provides any clarity. "liberal" is about as far as you really need to go.

[JayDuck]

Obama is a liberal, but he’s not the most liberal,” said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor who runs the site.

I fail to see how splitting hairs between "liberal" and "most liberal" provides any clarity. "liberal" is about as far as you really need to go.

No doubt he's a liberal.

My point was only about the stupidity of "voting rankings"

[Mister Bushice]

Still, to have the GOP or anyone try and make the label "Most liberal" seem more evil than "Liberal" is a joke.

[Mikey]

I guess a lot (most?) people are too fucking lazy (talking to you here pops) to look at the candidate's actual voting record and determine which agrees most with their own point of view.

Personally, I think my opinions are a mixture of what the idiot rag National Journal would consider liberal and conservative. Going by their rankings I could be way off in either direction without knowing their actual positions on individual issues.

To a lot of people, anything considered "liberal" is evil.
Same on the other side.

Too bad this country is so full of lemmings.

[Smackie Chan]

Obama is a liberal, but he’s not the most liberal,” said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor who runs the site.

I fail to see how splitting hairs between "liberal" and "most liberal" provides any clarity. "liberal" is about as far as you really need to go.

Bullshit. There are liberal centrists and there are liberals on the far left, and there is a significant distinction that can be drawn between the two. In this case, Obama, based on his voting record and whatever scorecard NJ uses, was deemed the most liberal, placing him in the category of far left. If you wanna win elections in this here country, you have to appeal to the center, whether you're a Republican or Democrat. If I'm running the McCain campaign, I play to the hilt the ultra-left card when characterizing my opponent. If I'm Obama's campaign manager, I minimize it and cite other sources that put my candidate closer to the center.

Your failure to recognize how this hair-splitting provides any clarity reflects poorly on your understanding of how our political system operates.

[Smackie Chan]

If I'm Obama's campaign manager, I lie like a motherfucker and desperately pretend my candidate is something that he very clearly is not.

Fixed that for ya.

Won't argue that, but you can replace "Obama" with the name of any other candidate, and it would still be true. It's in the campaign manager's handbook.