Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
arachnydFeb 24, 2012
It's all a matter of perspective. True liberals are just as critical of Pres. Obama as extreme conservatives.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Good point but you won't find many true liberals here on digg there is only true believers working here.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
I still believe the key words are "working here", they sure seem to be doing things one would do if they were getting paid for it.
See the difference between diggs on yours and arachnyd. Just 14 minutes difference between postings, yet BIG difference in number of diggs, see this all around, seems fishyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ageofmasteryFeb 24, 2012
Yeah, just ignore the fact Digg has had a left leaning user base since it started, this has to be a conspiracy.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
look up "digg virgin" in the urban dictionary. I'm sure you'll be able to identify.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
The "Gulf of Tonkin", the "Iraq War", those are conspiracies.
But your gonna tell me that political parties and politicians don't pay people to sway opinion. By posting articles, by commenting on blogs, news sites, etc..
Ya, Right.
Only a fool would believe that doesn't happen.
Oh, how did you get so many ups, and Stevo got only two downs, in an hour. You liberals are something else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aces2mexicoFeb 25, 2012
crying wolf won't save you-- consider which group most IT, educated and young people would go to for an outlet for news and discussion.
Then, consider where the main base of conservatives go - Fox news, Florida retirement homes and religious meetings.
I'm glad you are here ageofmastery. Let's enjoy the GOP circus this election season.
andywitkowskiFeb 25, 2012
Thats a bit sterotypicall, I work in IT and also consider myself a conservative, I also have conservative co-workers.. we rarely read Fox because conservative bias, the same goes with Digg.. I now mainly read slashdot, I used to frequently come here untill the largely left reader base.. It has DESTROYED the discussions here, lefty leaning comment is dugg up and if you leave a comment which combats that opinion you can expect every one of your comments on the board to be dugg down.. pretty patheticComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
'Thats a bit sterotypicall, I work in IT and also consider myself a conservative,"
Stereotypical? Aces2Mex is right. Is Digg not made up of mostly younger people in IT or technical fields? Now take that information and do a quick research on the political leanings of young people. Now do that for technical fields. Now combine both.
There are far more atheist/agnostic in technical and science fields because of the nature of it. You have to believe in science and science is filled with proving things correct or not. Why are most teachers, psychiatrist, and social workers liberal on social issues? Because people in those fields have strong empathy. Strong empathy leads to liberal leanings.
Now look at who make up the base of the conservatives. Is it not older population? In regards to social issues, are they not poorer? Even some poor democrats have conservative social values.
In regards to fiscal conservatives, are not most fiscal conservatives who are not social conservatives, mostly people in the corporate world? The type of personality that tends to dominate upper management position is the type that isn't afraid to step all over people to get there. That's why you hear a lot about corporate back stabbing. This type of personality will likely be dominated by people that really value only themselves relative to the rest (compared to how the average person values themselves relative to the rest).
Remember, Digg was initially a tech site. Some of the other social news websites didn't come from tech origins so they may skew differently.
ammattikiFeb 25, 2012
Maybe this is because arachnyd has a good point and stevanoski is just trolling.
Also Digg is not just American, the rest of the world is far more liberal than America.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Sorry, but as a heavy viewer, their is more trolling by so called Liberals than Conservatives. And maybe he does have a true and good point, i didn't comment one way or the other about arachnyd's comment.
20 comments posted within minutes of each other, all have about the same ups, what you call a troll comes in and leaves a comment, 10 minutes later, the original commenter has 45 ups, so called troll has 15 downs. So your saying the ones that bothered to digg one up because they supposedly agreed, did not bother to digg down the one they disagreed with. all in 10 minutes time? Why?
Pull the other one.
"Also Digg is not just American, the rest of the world is far more liberal than America."
Yes, we know, that's why most of the world is much worse off economically than we are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnysoftwareFeb 25, 2012
You'd have to not only be heavy but psychic to know if that is true.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
"
"Also Digg is not just American, the rest of the world is far more liberal than America."
Yes, we know, that's why most of the world is much worse off economically than we are"
Well, I think ammattiki was referring to the rest of the wealthy world. Poorer countries tend to be more conservative. We are the odd ball in the wealthy nations. But even in the US, the more wealthy states and cities are more liberal than the poorer states/cities.
johnnysoftwareFeb 25, 2012
Lots of people use the word "trolling" to describe the situation when someone says something that they disagree with.
That's not trolling.
Trolling is when someone intentionally wades into a discussion group, says something inflammatory not because they believe it at all or even care about he group.
They just do it because they are a kind of social pyromaniac. They like to ignite a fire on an online discussion board, not give or receive information.
It's really hard to compile statistics that hinge upon what a person, let alone every user who posts each single comment believes. I mean, c'mon.
Saying who does it more, especially in the made up context of "liberals vs. conservatives" which everyone knows is a sick joke, is even more vacuous than "my pa is bigger than your pa" and "my pa could beat your pa up".
Because first off, it proffers to answer a question we don't even want to know the answer too and never will. Second, we have no way of knowing and would not be better off if we did.
aces2mexicoMar 3, 2012
Rest of world, if Americans only knew how the rest of the world breathed the air. Clueless the world is theirs, kick push, kick push....
American Dream
Hope is an creation, what we do is an aberration.
In leap year, there is one extra day to prove the mayans wrong. outcasts in politics are all reaching out, it's like ron pual asking for an aspirin at noon while his wife says drilll baby drill
can we trust the martian? which calls for a de-nuclearization.
jajajajjaa
starmanjonesFeb 25, 2012
i think there are true liberals but they are afraid to say it. conservatives have made it a bad word. they have equated it with communist and somehow with spend thrift. the actual facts are that democrats have a better financial record than conservatives.
the truth is that obama is one of the most conservative democrat presidents in history. if you don't know that then you don't know what that means.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Thank you for the well thought out reply. I disagree with everything except, "...i think there are true liberals but they are afraid to say it. conservatives have made it a bad word. they have equated it with communist..." but didn't digg or bury.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
starmanjonesFeb 25, 2012
i never called myself a liberal until i found conservatives doing everything they could to make it a bad word. i decided that this was about confusing conventional and traditional meanings in order to apply connotations that were historically different.
the historical meaning of liberal has very little to do with communist or even socialist. that blurring of the meanings of words in order to confuse an issue is the heart of propaganda.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't believe it was to confuse an issue but to define one.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
I agree, I think many true liberals are afraid to say it because conservatives have made it a bad word and right wing talk is much more popular on radio and cable news so it spreads easier.
I completely agree on about Obama. He is a centralist but the right wing has an agenda to make him appear as a liberal who is out to take their freedom. Even Clinton was a centralist.
Don't get me wrong, when it comes to fiscal matters I tend to be a centralist or slightly left (historically speaking....the right has gone so far right that I'm no where near the middle now) but I hate that the right tries to portray Obama as a liberal when he is not.
starmanjonesFeb 25, 2012
conservatives mush federal spending and socialism and communism as the same thing. they aren't. they concern who owns the means of production and distribution.
federal spending is about infrastructure whether thats military, highways or insurance. any infrastructure need should be federal so it doesn't go away. it needs to be federal when its necessary but nobody else will do it. the space program is an example. federal spending on space technology is the smartest most wealth producing institution of any sort ever but private investment would never have gotten us to the moon.
we need another federal program like it for energy production. it would create jobs, create new businesses, stabilize energy costs, secure energy supplies, and if all those are things happen our deficit goes away and as well as our debt. it would lower unemployment shrinking the need for a social safety net while at the same time giving us more money to spend on a social safety net. when we stop using fossil fuels the need to panic about climate change goes away.
why conservatives hate that is unknown to me. but it is a method fixing our economy that has been done before. it has nothing in common with socialism or communism which are command economies.
daimposterFeb 26, 2012
The problem is that conservatives are so set out to prove government doesn't work, that they will only concentrate on the bad parts of a project.
For example, they got so bent out of shape about the solyndra loan. It represented only 1.5% of the total loans for energy in the stimulus plan and is the only one that has gone bad or even expected to be a bad loan.
So they concentrate on this 1.5% rather than view the whole project. Buffet just releases a statement to his board about some of the mistakes he made in the past year. One of them was a mutual-billion dollar mistake....would republicans focus on that mistake and conclude his business is a failure?
BTW, Solyndra was chosen as one of the finalist of an energy plan under Bush and he actually tried to have the loan completed in the final days of office. But of course republicans won't even look at that part of the history. Nor will they look at the history of successful US federal projects.
starmanjonesFeb 27, 2012
@daimposter
to me... what solyndra proves is that giving money directly to business isn't the best idea. business will turn the business into getting by the next round of grants.
we should do it under nasa or other and they are charged with specific tasks. nasa was charged with getting us to the moon. they took bids for completion of certain parts of that from private business. if we'd just given money to boeing or MD we'd never got there.
aces2mexicoMar 3, 2012
this is what happens when you embrace the martian. do we want to forgive an investment as to who can develop sustainable technology or do we want to call for drill baby drill - like sara palin on republican white water?
katrina with no fema. romney wins michigan and calls for detroit demise?
where you mona lisa
- kid cudi
kamtsaFeb 24, 2012
Yes, critical of Obama but support and vote for him nevertheless. Words are cheap.
dauntless1Feb 24, 2012
You mean like how conservatives "don't really like" Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney, yet will still vote for anyone who ISN'T Obama?
Stupidity is still stupidity when your guys do it too.
smpaisnutrientsFeb 24, 2012
Ooh, sick burn! Ice burn!
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
No, it makes perfect sense.
Any Republican would be better than Obama. Obama is purposely working to ruin us. Nothing can be worse than that.
countess666Feb 24, 2012
except republicans, who ALL are purposely working to destroy the US and willing to vote in lock-step to make it happen.
see, i can come up with stupid untrue and bigot talking points as well.
aadyssFeb 24, 2012
How are they for destroying the U.S.?
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Obama is purposely bankrupting the nation. He'll be happy when we're all unemployed, peddling bikes through the snow. On our way to pick up our govt ration coupons.
It's Cloward Piven on a national level.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
actually, you are much more right than kasha. Republicans are about small government (at least talk it) and remind us about how bad government is, so they have little incentive to actually do the right thing. Doing the right thing means proving government can do good. They will shut down government over a debt ceiling issue so that when they get out in front of their constituents or the cameras, they can point to how horrible the government is. Self-sabotage.
countess666Feb 25, 2012
"Obama is purposely bankrupting the nation."
except of course that most of the current debt comes from republican presidents(the last 3), and most of the current deficit comes from republican measures like 2 unpaid for wars and tax cuts for the rich, not to mention a huge recession caused by the implementation of the republican ideology of deregulation.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Bush spent too much (though the last two years were under a Democrat controlled Congress)
But Obama has him beat.
"When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion "Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnysoftwareFeb 25, 2012
@kasha after Bush failed at the executive job of doing regulation, if Bush had let all the banks go bankrupt, the 3 car manufactures in America along with all their parts suppliers go bankrupt, insurance and retirement fund companies implode, would YOU have bailed out the whole US economy -- which at that point would be a lot deeper crater than it is?
Bush drove the economy off a cliff. Bush admitted the industries needed bailouts. Before Obama was even sworn in, Bush wrote the checks from the US govt. checkbook to bail out these industries.
Bush himself said that experts, looking at what he had done, said that "the US was headed for the worst economic disaster since the great depression."
Of the pair, Bush & Obama, Bush was the *only one* who had ever been President before! Obama hadn't even been sworn in and I don't even think the election had happened yet when Bush started admitting in the final months of his presidency that the US was 'doomed'.
Why are you subtracting two numbers and doing simple arithmetic when every grade schooler over 4th grade can read the news?
We know you can count but *can you read* and *can you think* ?
countess666Feb 25, 2012
"But Obama has him beat.
"When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion "
as i said because he has to get the economy back on track, pay for 2 unpaid for wars, and uphold the tax cuts for the rich until the economy is back on track. all while in the midst of a huge recession greatly effecting revenue, and growth.
take those away, and the return the lost revenue because of the republican caused crisis and the budget is as good as balanced, would have been for all 3 years.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
You can't really believe that wee weeing away almost a trillion dollars does anything to get anyone's "economy back on track."
Stop pretending it's a "republican caused crisis."
Geez. The Democrats created the sub prime mortgage mess. The mortgage system was perfect until the Democrat messed with it.
And if Clinton hadn't ignored AQ's repeated attacks on us all through the 90s we might have avoided all those wars.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
This IS a republican caused crisis. There is no question of this. This is Milton Friedman's ideas, pushed by Regan, and mindlessly worshiped today. The worst the dems can be accused of it NOT fighting it. But even though his efforts have been week, Obama HAS done just enough of the right thing to start the recovery.
And quit acting like Obama has run up a huge deficit. He inherited a huge deficit the same way Bush inherited a huge surplus. Not could have pushed to repeal or veto what Bush has already done? Honestly, I don't know. That is kind of an 'inside baseball' question and I am not inside. But I know more than 3/4 of the debt racked up on Obama's watch has been Bushes.
Bush was such a bad president, that his icy, hand it still reaching from the presidential grave to f**k us.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
"there is no question of this..."
Lefty/lib/progressive/looters are always afraid of discussion.
The economy boomed. Boomed! Almost continually from Reagan's mid-1980s until 2008.
Yes, yes. When the dot com boomed ended there was a short hiccup.
But it was the sub prime mortgages going bad that ended it in 2008. Your Democrats took a perfect system -- the mortgage lending system -- and "fixed" it. The fuse was lit and 15 years later the bomb went off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
"more than 3/4 of the debt racked up on Obama's watch has been Bushes."
Cite.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
"Lefty/lib/progressive/looters are always afraid of discussion."
You can't discuss what the answer to 1 plus 1 is. There are only two responses to fact: the right one and the wrong one.
There is nothing to discuss. Republicans tanked the economy and are fighting it's repair. And as with all facts, you either agree or you are wrong.
It's not that I 'don't want' to discuss it, there is literally nothing to discuss.
countess666Feb 25, 2012
again: mortgage crisis was just the trigger. it could have been anything. and the mortgage crisis would have been solved by TARP if not for the unregulated derivatives trade, allowed by the republicans.
that collapse of the derivatives trade caused the financial crisis that in turn caused the actual crisis.
"And if Clinton hadn't ignored AQ's repeated attacks on us all through the 90s we might have avoided all those wars."
one of them had NOTHING to do with al quada.
and if bush handed COMPLETELY messed up on both of them we could have ended them a while ago. he didn't even know about the 3 different groups living in Iraq and how their relations are with each other before going in, and he completely took his eye of the ball in Afghanistan.
"You can't really believe that wee weeing away almost a trillion dollars does anything to get anyone's "economy back on track."
anti-cyclic investments do work.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Doesn't your back hurt? You know....twisting yourself into a pretzel to justify these things.
And then flat statement that assume facts not in evidence..."anti-cyclic investments do work."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
9/11 was on Bush's watch. Clinton left a list of things he felt Bush should address asap and number one was Bin Laden. Bush ignored it, but we know that when Clinton left the office that last time, he left that list right in the center of the desk.
It's amazing how you blame Obama for Bush's debts, but somehow 9/11 is Clinton's fault. Talk about scoliosis.
countess666Feb 25, 2012
"Doesn't your back hurt? You know....twisting yourself into a pretzel to justify these things."
says the human-Gordian-Knot.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
I have a sword, it would help...
countess666Feb 25, 2012
"The fuse was lit and 15 years later the bomb went off."
AGAIN, mortgage was just the trigger, in your analogy it was a firecracker, setting of the huge pile of TNT the republican put next to it by making the unregulated derivatives market possible.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
The derivatives are investments in...sub prime mortgages. If the buyers were still sending in their checks there would be no problem.
countess666Feb 25, 2012
The derivatives are investments in...sub prime mortgages. If the buyers were still sending in their checks there would be no problem."
you think there is no problem when extra risky mortgages are worth 10's if not hundreds of times more then the actual mortgages are worth, all the while nobody actually knowing they are based on those extra risky mortgages, including eventually the guys selling them?!?
you see no inherent problems with that?
because everybody knows the housing market never has a slow period right if not for democratic measures right? dont be a idiot.
and this one happened to be based on sub-prime mortgages... thanks to republicans there is NOTHING stopping derivatives on other financial products from reaching simular levels of what can only be called sheer stupidity.
in fact its probably already happening!
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Yeah, they lied about the mortgages. What the chances were they'd be repaid...duh.
It was all working fine until the Democrats "fixed" it.
It was a perfect system until the Democrats "fixed" it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 25, 2012
the BANKS lied. they know full well what they were based on at first. they LIED to their customers, were allowed to lie to their customers.
and when that derivatives market took off, they started lying to each other, and eventually lying to themselves.
and AGAIN, this could happened to ANY financial product thanks to republicans deregulation. no democratic involvement needed.
ascadianFeb 24, 2012
Lessor of two evils maybe? Even though the GOP sucks nuts this round, many repubs still think its an improvement. No one candidate is going to be perfect.
Stupid would be if you believed the other guy was a better man for the job but still voted to stay on your "team"
Ron Paul is better then the GOP trash running right now IMHO.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 24, 2012
Stupid is believing your "team" is inherently better. See kasha's comment above for proof.
ascadianFeb 24, 2012
Your exactly correct. I try not to ever go for a person because of the "team". I hate all the GOP candidates this round except Ron Paul. I just think Ron's policies are better then the rest. If Ron Paul was a democrat HELL yes I'd still vote for him.
I hate Obama's leadership, but I hated Bushes just as much. Id have voted for Cujo before either of these guys lol /s
You know what I mean though lol... ^^Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 24, 2012
@ascadian
Yeah, pretty much. Obama isn't who I want to vote for, BUT, he's the only one not putting himself in my wife's vagina.
As for Ron Paul, he seems to be 75% good ideas, 25% s**t that I think might actually destroy our country. I wish it wasn't that way, because the ideas that he has that are good, seem REALLY good. But I can't get past the crazy enough to endorse him.
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
"As for Ron Paul, he seems to be 75% good ideas, 25% s**t that I think might actually destroy our country."
Agreed. Although left and right largely differ on what constitutes the good and what constitutes the bad.
One thing we can agree on though...most of his supporters have a special mix of resolute conviction & crazy...sorta like that runaway bride look of ideology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
I'm sorry atom. I hate to do this to you, but... I have to digg that up. We both hate it, but it has to be done. I have no idea why it's being dug down. That is describes Paul supporters exactly.
ascadianFeb 25, 2012
If you had to choose 1 out of the 4 GOP which one would it be. I realize this is completely hypothetical but I really want to know, would it be Paul or one of the other 3 stooges?
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
One of the stooges by a mile. Paul is like Bush, you can't tell him anything, you can't educate him. He's damaged goods, crazy.
At least with the stooges they'll do what somebody tells them (even if I wish they wouldn't), but Paul? If it's not part of some long debunked 19th century socio-political 'bible' he won't do it. He's the Pat Roberson of the Hayek set.
That said, I like about half of what Paul says, but even at that, I have flexibility, and I'm sure he doesn't. The the world is a dynamic place. You have to fit your beliefs to the world, not the world to your beliefs. It doesn't work that way.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Ya, that hope and change sure shows true intelligence.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Agreed. Recognizing the failures of the Reagan Republicans is the first step on the path to wisdom.
vectorbFeb 24, 2012
At least we are critical. Thats a step better than the Republican zombies blindly following whatever the GOP line is. Lucky for us the GOP has moved that line so far to the right that it scares even conservatives.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Oh, yes, critical of hope and change.
Don't know much about conservatives, both parties scare them.
GentlemanGhost542Feb 25, 2012
what kind of conservatives. there is not one clear cut version of what a conservative is.
There are conservatives out there turned off by how the party has gone to Far to the Right.
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
there more people out there. it's just when they speak up the more Far Right leadership suppresses them or threatens to throw them out of the movement
ascadianFeb 24, 2012
How come ~~~> "true liberals - extreme conservatives" ?
Why not ~~~> "true liberals - true conservatives" ?
Or this ~~~> "extreme liberals - extreme conservatives"?
Just wondering, but yes your right it's perspective.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Mainly because there is no such thing as an extreme liberal. Not in office anyway. That breed is extincted. Which is sad. I don't agree with much of them, but there is something to be said for being wrong for the right reasons. It sure beats the republican wrong for the wrong reasons.
elimgarakFeb 24, 2012
OK, so 51% see him as too liberal, and 49% see him as too conservative. That just means he is in the center. At best that tells me that average Americans are incredibly uninformed.
austinjameshereFeb 24, 2012
Yet one quick look at the Republican candidates, who foam at the mouth every time they hear the word Obama, social responsibility, or equal rights - and Obama looks pretty damn moderate. If you speak in generalities, Americans are likely to identify as conservative (that isn't news). But if you speak in terms of actual issues, Americans are overwhelming liberal.
Taxes on the rich... 60% support raising taxes on millionaires
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57345810-503544/poll-most-back-raising-taxes-on-millionaires/
Gay marriage... 53% support gay marriage
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
Federally mandated birth control coverage... 61% support
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/polls-suggest-republicans-losing-birth-control-battle-even-among-catholics/article2340067/
Providing a Path of Citizenship for illegal immigrants... 72% support
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/polls-show-americans-support-immigration-reform-why-don-161607538.html
Percentage of Americans who think abortion should always be illegal... 20%
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/polls-show-americans-support-immigration-reform-why-don-161607538.html
Percentage of Americans who think it should be illegal to deny healthcare coverage for people with pre-existing conditions... 71%
But keep believing Rick Santorum isn't a radical lunatic - can't wait for him to get the general election spotlight.
U_logic_error_broFeb 24, 2012
never trust polls 100%
Obama to liberal? lets see
he expanded gun rights by allowing to carry guns in national parks.
with the patriot act in place he basically said to bush i will raise one and passed the NDAA which is ironic for a guy who promised to close guatonimo.
under his presidency more illegal immigrants have been deported more than under any republican president in history...
he bailed out the mega rich like bush saying they are job creators yeah they create jobs just not here in America anymore.
ok done for now time to let the sock puppets and excuse makers have fun with my post
repinsFeb 24, 2012
-He signed a bill to change credit card rules...that had a rider on it
source:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21cards.html
-cannot disagree he did fail on the personal privacy issue big time
-I would like to see a source on that deportation claim
-He bailed out the Unions, not the super richComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 24, 2012
"-He bailed out the Unions, not the super rich"
Yeah, those companies owned by the super rich didn't get bailed out.....oh wait, they did.
Well, at least those super rich CEO's didn't get bailouts and golden parachutes.....oh wait, they did.
So much for the idiotic "not the super rich" comments.
aadyssFeb 24, 2012
Ya, but they're not "paying their fair share". I.m not super rich and I sure do hate them for not giving me money to ease my pain. Give me money you rich people!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 24, 2012
http://www.lawfirmnewswire.com/2011/11/obama-has-deported-more-illegal-immigrants-than-president-bush-says-miami-immigration-lawyer/
"As of September 12, 2011, the Obama Administration had deported roughly 1.06 million in just 2.5 years, putting him in a good position to deport more than President Bush did in his four year term, which was 1.57 million illegal immigrants.
The reality does not match up with the debate over U.S. immigration policy, and with an election looming in 2012, something has to give. In fact, the hottest point of contention right now with the government is their gap in what they say and what they actually do. It would likely behoove the administration to remember that 67 percent of the Latino population voted for Obama, not McCain and Palin. If their concerns are not met, that 67 percent will likely cross the floor in the next election."
There are many sources. Just Google it.
andromedastarFeb 24, 2012
Getting TRUTHY on us, eh?
anomaly100Feb 24, 2012
Truthiness!
aadyssFeb 24, 2012
So you are saying that Obama's immigration reform efforts are to deport?
melthornalFeb 24, 2012
Its funny because Obama really isn't liberal at all. The American political spectrum is just f**ked.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
exactly. the guy has been a centrist, i cant take anyone seriously who says hes too liberal.
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
Stop being such an Obama apologist.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
Believe it or not, people on the left is do not consider "Obama is a centrist" to be an apology - it's an accusation. We elected him to implement the left's agenda, not to cave to the Republicans time and time again.
Look at health care - the center-of-left position was that we should have a public option, run with a modest profit, so as to prevent the insurance industry from operating as an oligopoly and gouging customers. We didn't get it, and the reforms we actually got are right of center.
Same for the Bush tax cuts. The center-of-left position was that we should let all of the cuts expire rather than extend them for top earners. Yet, Obama did just the opposite - agreeing to extend the tax cuts for top earners in order to secure the tax cuts would be extended for the middle class and working class.
There are some things we really like about Obama, and he is a much better option than McCain or any of the candidates the GOP has come up with so far this year, but I think if we had it all to do over again, we would have nominated Hillary in '08...
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
apologist? Are you on dope? He's bragging! And I don't blame him. Obama is a fantastic president, best we have had in my lifetime, that's for sure. I, too, and singing his praises. Thank god we finally have someone like him.
The only wish i have is that he be MORE Obama than he already is. He needs to take that kick ass attitude he has while he's defeating Al Queda to the republicans.
mtownFeb 24, 2012
Obama is in the middle of the road if anything. He's got liberal policies but have done many consertative-ish things too.
drunkclamFeb 24, 2012
Which goes to show how successful the right-wing media has been because Obama has governed as a center-right president.
comgenFeb 24, 2012
"
" Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Feb. 16-19, 2012, with a random sample of 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. "
Out of:
USA population est.: 307,006,550 mil
USA Voter turnout est.: 132,618,580 mil ( 2008 ) out of est.:
231,229,580 mil ( eligible to vote population )
....
Survey Methods
Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Feb. 16-19, 2012, with a random sample of 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
View methodology, full question results, and trend data.
http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/152957/Ratings_Obama_Santorum_Romney_Ideology120224%20.pdf
"
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
So, is your whole point that you don't understand representative sampling?
charlesdkraussFeb 24, 2012
Reality has a well known liberal bias!
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
That phrase was coined by a comedian. In other words, he was only joking.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
It was indeed. A brilliant comedian who, like most artists, put the truth into their work.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
Ever heard the phrase, "it's funny because it's true"?
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
The truth here is "reality has a a well known liberal bias" is a joke.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
A joke that is funny because it's true.
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
Only a fool would take that joke literally.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Only a fool would deny the humor of a joke that rings so true that I've never heard anyone not laugh at it.
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
You mean the fact that "reality has a liberal bias" is truly a joke? I don't deny the humor in that. In fact I think it is pretty funny. What's even funnier are the idiots that think it's not a joke.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
Only a fool would take Magic Johnson's penis up the butt without a condom.
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
So you are saying that you are having "safe sex" with Magic Johnson?
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
I say many things.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
Again, just because it's a joke doesn't mean it isn't true.
Ever heard the joke "What has two thumbs and doesn't give a rat's ass? (points at self with both thumbs) this guy!"
Usually when someone says that (or a variant), it's done for comedic effect but it's also completely true.
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
In this case there is no truth to it. It's just a joke.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
Perhaps, but you'd still be wrong about your "it was said by a comedian" implies "it isn't true" theory.
leonard2Feb 26, 2012
Never said that just because something is said by a comedian means it isn't true. Never came up with any such theory.
amaoicanFeb 26, 2012
"That phrase was coined by a comedian. In other words, he was only joking."
"In other words" means the next sentence is a restatement of the previous one - that is, that they have the same meaning. Thus, above quote implies that you believe that "the phrase was coined by a comedian" implies that it is "only a joke", not an opinion he holds to be true.
charlesdkraussFeb 27, 2012
He was joking, but it's funny because it's true.
kyravonFeb 24, 2012
And most of us liberals see him as too moderate/conservative. It's all n your perspective.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
But at least you know he is a true believer.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
traveler
correct word is traveler
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Oh god. I shouldn't even be telling you this. Obama is doing everything you want and more. But he does it by lying and misdirection and passive-aggressive schemes. Can you really not see that?
Never mind. Pay no attention.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
NOBODY sees Obama as 'too liberal.' What the poll actually says is half agree with him and half are idiot slaves to Fox news.
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
Oh, bett posted this.
I'll expect the digg down surge any moment.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
thats just your pad soaking up your douche tears
concusionFeb 24, 2012
speaking of a douchebag, have you ever had a comment on here that wasnt' throwing a tantrum at liberals...?
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
How could he? That's all they have. 80% of the smart people are on the left, 20% are centrists. Statistically, there is no smart 'conservative' argument. So him attempting 'logic' is only an excuse for someone, often me, bitch slapping him down.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
oh I know, its like talking to a wall.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
talking to a wall of awesome that s**ts rainbows that smells like the leather of a fine baseball glove...
ya that kind of awesome
but you probably play soccer so you will never understandComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whatsurpointFeb 25, 2012
'Conservative' is unfortunately 'fundamentalist' in disguise, so basically they are pretending to be a little more liberal than they really are. There is no other explanation for their Stone Age views.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
You might as well be talking to a wall bluto, they don't need no stinkin' facts.
particleman420Feb 24, 2012
hey, what a surprise, the same number of buries as the other Bett submitted articles, but only bett submitted articles. almost like it's an organized thing.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
ok I was seriously wondering why comments were getting buried for no reason. THE DP'S HAVE ARRIVED
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
I call them the DT's. It's more accurate. If you place party over nation you are a traitor, not a patriot.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
after i DP you you will get the DT's
particleman420Feb 25, 2012
and then you comment bluto, and it's like a BM.
but i preffer Digg Propagandist, that way it keeps the initials and is more accurate
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
I don't usually like to post 'good one' type posts because they seem sycophantic... but that was pretty funny.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
hey look barfing out DP's when you been here less then a month?
how do you know what a DP is or how may there could be?
i am going to be your DP first sean. dont worry i will be gentile when i get up there and DP you like you want to be DP...
thats why you came here isnt it.... all that DP talk gets you all bothered
dont worry sean, i am DP and i have the power to DP you like you really want to be DP'ed
yaaa babyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
1) the internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg_Patriots
2) you're obnoxious
mlw4428Feb 25, 2012
Hey look, defending the DPs who "totally don't exist, bro".
LOL, get back to Old Dogg with all 20 users in a giant circle jerk of fail. Your parents should be shot for raising you like you are.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
my parents were shot
thanks
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Yeah, but too late. You were already born.
r0g3rFeb 25, 2012
The fact that over half believe he's "too liberal," demonstrates how successful the right has been in shifting attitudes of our entire nation to the right. Obama is not even very liberal, in fact, sometimes even a bit conservative. So ANY hint of liberalism is too much.
It helps the GOP that Americans are stupid and uneducated, and don't know that our country was founded and built on the ideals of liberalism.
novenatorFeb 24, 2012
Since when did catering to big business, giving tax cuts to everyone (including the rich), deporting more people than the Bush/Cheney regime, and continuing the overseas empire translate into "too liberal"? By the standards of ANY other developed nation in the world (and most of the undeveloped ones too), Obama is center-right, possibly even fully conservative in the way his administration has governed.
It is only by the severely skewed lens of the American corporate shills that so dominate the Washington D.C. establishment that he might *appear* liberal by contrast. Of course, even David Duke would seem liberal compared to those right wing nut jobs!
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
You forgot the Koch brothers. Check you tin foil hat for leaks please.
alanocuFeb 24, 2012
Lliberals sure like Koch. More than me, which is odd.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
lol, having a great Friday, cooking for a funeral of a friend's Mom today (which I love doing). Your comments only add to my day.
mlw4428Feb 25, 2012
Did she die of boredom from reading your ass kissing comments?
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
lol, I don't know.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
novy tunes never forgets about Koch...
always on the tip of ole ole's tongue
dauntless1Feb 24, 2012
6 different comments after Novenator's, not one grown ass adult in the bunch with the balls to try and prove him wrong.
Condos in conservative coward land must be going cheap these days. Lots of comments from diggers living there.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
And adults always use words like: "grown ass adult"
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
you said Balls
balls deep
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
Whats to prove? Anyone with half a brain can look at his comments and know that he's talking s**t.
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
Leftists take over the means-of-production. That's the definition:
He took over GM and Chrysler.
Took over the college loan industry.
Took over the small part of the health care industry that wasn't already entwined with the govt.
Yes, I know. He has a reason. They always have a reason.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 24, 2012
yea, and that chrysler/gm thing turned out so horribly, didnt it?
unclefireFeb 24, 2012
Uh- Chrysler belongs to Fiat now. The US gov doesn't own shares anymore. GM is doing way better too and none of the board members are Federal government. Neither were ever were supposed to be permanent.
So I guess it wasn't all that bad after now was it?
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
GM is doing better? Obama gave them a $45 billion unique tax break.
Easy to pretend you're getting profitable after that, yo.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
those damn corparations
mlw4428Feb 25, 2012
Did you forget about Bushy and AIG whom a loaned a total of $1 Trillion USD?
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Agreed, I won't vote for Bush again.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
me neither
damn him
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Against Obama? A black man? Bulls**t. You'd vote for Hitler over a black man.
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
Racist.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Like you did with Cain? Play the race card you get one played.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
"Yes, I know. He has a reason. They always have a reason."
LOL. That's it in a nutshell. Everything that is wrong with the right. We must not do anything and when we do it's always for some reason.
Uh, yes. Exactly. Your 'logic' is 'I have a reason to do something, and that is exactly why I shouldn't"
...
?????
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Wow. I knew lefty/libs were literal.
But this is too much.
It was *irony*, son.
i·ro·ny/ˈīrənē/
Noun:
The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the OPPOSITE, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
So when I said he had a *reason* I meant he'd *claim* he had a reason.
A fake reason.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
The irony is it's NOT irony but should be.
Everything you do is for a reason. The only reason NOT to do something is you DON'T have a reason (Iraq, for example. No reason to go, so we shouldn't have.) When Obama acts it's with reason. And you want to say that is a bad thing.
If only we could restrict politicians from acting UNLESS they had good reason!
aadyssFeb 24, 2012
AH, here's novy with the big business, corporations, the 1%, (whom many are liberal) etc.
Down with corporations! Novy will put little communes in place where we all can go to be given our laptops, Ipads, cell phones. food, automobiles, houses, clothing, etc. There will be no profit at all. It will be so great and cozy. No salaries, no expenses...just an easy comfortable life with no troubles at all. Just the thought of it all makes me tear up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 24, 2012
interesting poll on their personal perception of the word, "liberal".
President Obama's political views are "too liberal,"
President Obama's political views are "open to new behavior or opinions"
President Obama's political views are "favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms"
President Obama's political views are "too moderate"
President Obama's political views are " not extreme, partisan or radical."
OoO !!
anomaly100Feb 24, 2012
This might have something to do with Republicans (with the exception of my friend Rick) moving so far over to the fringe, they're falling off the right wing crazy cliff.
leonard2Feb 24, 2012
The fringe??? You mean that place where LWNJs dwell?
markglFeb 24, 2012
That's a lie.
penglustFeb 24, 2012
In which land of insane is this a lie. Compare the average republican candidate to Goldwater and see where it gets you.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Remember the good old days... When we thought Goldwater was a nut?
bdbrFeb 25, 2012
Gallup polls show the US to be growing increasingly conservative. Recent polls show voters 42% conservative, 37% moderate, and 21% liberal. I don't see why anyone would find it surprising that a conservative majority consider a centrist President too liberal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150611/Democrats-Liberal-Less-White-2008.aspx
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Exactly, well said.
ncmusicFeb 25, 2012
I think all the self labeling as conservative or liberal is not very useful since the definitions seem to mean so many different things.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-left-and-right-really-mean/2011/08/25/gIQARtAqXR_blog.html
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Conservatives believe in private property. Lib/lefty/progressives believe in more govt ownership and/or control.
I don't accept most of the author's phony premises. The lefties try to foment confusion on this point on purpose, as they figure people will then vote based on looks and charm which is on their side this time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicFeb 25, 2012
I don't accept your definition of conservative and progressive. Neither do most dictionaries. What phony premises? That both parties have flipped on the exact same policy principles?
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
No? What's your definition of "progressive"?
ncmusicFeb 25, 2012
I'm not going to teach you how to use wikipedia, I don't have time for a useless argument. But, you know your definitions are wrong.
ncmusicFeb 25, 2012
Just proves my point even more, how can you trust anyone labeling themselves when no one is using the same definition?
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
I had already looked on wikipedia. After picking my way through a ton of meaningless abstractions, my impression was wikipedia agreed with me.
Or, ever see this list? Do you agree with these?
• You think that human rights ought always to trump property rights.
• You think public education should be free, not just from kindergarten through high school, but as far as a person is willing and able to go.
• You think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.
• You think that regulating big corporations isn't enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
"I don't accept most of the author's phony premises."
Weren't you the one chiding me for 'not discussing?' The difference is, I'm not discussing because there is nothing to discuss. You aren't discussing because is no way to win when you are wrong.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Republicans only hope for holding on to their power is to run against a fictional Obama who is a socialist and wants to take your guns.
My hope is that Republicans will throw a real fringe nut job up there and we can get a real progressive to run against Obama. Nobody is going to vote for I-hate-gay-people and birth-control-is-evil Santorum, so a Ralph Nader type would not spoil anything for progressives.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
"Nobody is going to vote for I-hate-gay-people and birth-control-is-evil Santorum"
let me introduce you to middle america
penglustFeb 24, 2012
Corn fed retardation.
aadyssFeb 24, 2012
Yes, 'and it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." You know, "those" people.
Wait, I came from 2 miles outside a very small town in Pennsylvania. Yes, I must be one of "those" people.You know, "those" people and "you" people.Ya.......Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
Do DP's not have a sense of humor? Damn.
anomaly100Feb 24, 2012
No they don't. They *think* they're funny though.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
oh come on nom nom
that was funny
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Well done aad
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
aadyss, I come from pretty near southwestern Pennsylvania. Those are my people you are talking about. And I can tell you, first hand, they give Alabama a run for it's money in the 'backward' department.
But, they usually work for a living, so they have that over the competition.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssFeb 25, 2012
I spent my first 17 years in southwestern Pa.(Grade School and High School) and have many relatives who still reside there. Who else don't you like other than Pakistanis, Palestinians, Arabs of any sort and color, Pennsylvanians and people who live in Alabama.
You point your finger at all sorts and laugh don't you? Tell me, what makes you greater than these?
I have religion and own three guns myself. I guess to you that is a very bad thing. Ya, it's a downright shame. It's funny, Obama himself relaxed gun control laws ,is protected daily by gun totin' men and women, and claims to be a devout Christian so what makes him so great in your eyes?
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
I point the finger and laugh at the stupid. Yes. You idiots have too much power and your ignorance is spreading like cancer. You keep electing f**kwads like Bush and are LITERALLY destroying this nation. I'm not saying that is a 'running around screaming' way like Gingritch. I mean you are literally, brick by brick tearing down what we've build at the very time our outside competitors are getting their act together. I'm not worried that once day 'the barbarians' are going to come crashing though. I'm more worried we'll go like Rome. Suddenly a bridge or an aqueduct falls down... and we suddenly realize we no longer have the wherewithal to fix it.
I would LOVE it if one of the political parties got smart and started acting on it. But I'm a little long in the tooth to believe in that fantasy anymore. Now I'll just settle for average and fight to get out the STUPID.
And if I can make you properly ashamed of what you are, then perfect. You should be ashamed, and nobody should ever look at you and say "I want to join up with that!"
theswashbucklerFeb 24, 2012
And then if you poll them about whether they agree with individual policies or not about 70% would agree with each individual policy.
That he's too "liberal" is just successful branding by Republicans, not reality.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 24, 2012
The idea that people consider Obama "too liberal" is horrifying.
First of all, ALL conservatives consider him "too liberal", because anything to their left is "too liberal".
But as someone who's extremely liberal, Obama isn't nearly liberal enough for my tastes.
Closed AccountFeb 24, 2012
Day in and day out, we hear right wingers sharing their warped definition of what it means to be liberal, conservative, independent...you name it. They have *no* grasp of basic journalism standards and they're always spoiling for a fight. So the "liberal media" is any source who asks a right winger to clarify a statement he or she made. We hear, "why isn't the media asking Obaaaaaaama *his* views on religion?" Um, maybe because he's the President, he's running unopposed, and we already asked him this stuff four years ago?
They don't want their candidates to be asked tough questions but yet they'll turn around in a heartbeat and sob after 8 years of Bush, that they didn't know what they were getting into when they nominated him. Ok...but what about the second time? Some *still* aren't convinced they know *enough* about President Obama. In their shallow minds, if the media is giving Obama a pass, then why shouldn't they stay ignorant of their own candidates as well? Warped.
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
Another "nowingnutlies" sockpuppet bites the dust.
Good riddance...he ads noting, under any name.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
wait what...
he was in the DP club?
/i laugh cause they are funny
aadyssFeb 24, 2012
rockyoumonkeys,
Aw...you haven't received you Obama money yet. Be patient, if he wins a second term you will receive plenty of cash. Those filthy rich are going to be bowing down and sending money everywhere.It's going to be so great!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
silenttwitchFeb 24, 2012
This is a survey of 1,000 people, let's not read too deeply into this:
http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/152957/Ratings_Obama_Santorum_Romney_Ideology120224%20.pdf
johnnysoftwareFeb 25, 2012
1/400000 of the country
To put that in perspective, there are 2000x more people in _jail_ in the US than Gallup bothered to reach out to in this poll.
They had huge a captive audience, they looked inquisitively at the usher who was coming on shift instead.
It's not a great survey for sampling something so complex from such a tiny sub sub sub subpopulation.
apokalyps2547Feb 24, 2012
And these numbers are still way ahead of anything you'll see from the crop of GOP candidates.
thenews3Feb 24, 2012
Perfect thought.
sdonaldFeb 25, 2012
Obama goes down the company line almost 98% of the time and he's "too liberal?!?!?
You have got to be s**tting me!
We need a left-wing President worst than any American President in history right now and he ain't it!
Vote Socialist!
sdonaldFeb 25, 2012
Obama goes down the company line almost 98% of the time and he's "too liberal?!?!?
You have got to be s**tting me!
We need a left-wing President worst than any American President in history right now and he ain't it!
Vote Socialist!
rudegarFeb 24, 2012
maybe it's because of the 9 myths
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
Too Liberal, boy how the world has changed, 50 years ago he would be considered extreme far right.
Wait this chart says it all, http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
concusionFeb 24, 2012
only for some of us. The ones that seem to make up their own facts and live in their own world. The ones who think the US government would let an illegal immigrant become president.
bettverbotenFeb 24, 2012Submitter
Here is the actual poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152954/Half-Say-Obama-Liberal-Agree-Issues.aspx?utm_source=add%2Bthis&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T0ebqHvZQBQ.twitterComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrFeb 25, 2012
What is all that stuff that USAToday added in that link (addthis.com, twitter..?). Here is a cleaner URL without all that:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152954/Half-Say-Obama-Liberal-Agree-Issues.aspx
ferretmanFeb 26, 2012
@bettr - Interesting that Diggerals would vote you down just for posting to the *poll*.
Guess they are desperate to hide inconvenient truths such as this.....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
Of all of the polls findings, this one may have the greatest implications for the presidential election:
"Also, independents are much more likely to perceive Obama as being too liberal (50%) than to perceive either Republican as being too conservative."
Most pundits agree that it will be independents who decide the election, as Democrats and Republicans will generally vote along party lines.
One thing I would add is that the public's views and perceptions about politicians is shaped to a large extent by what stories the media chooses to prominently feature. For instance, Democrats are portraying the Obamacare insurance mandates for religious institutions as a women's health and contraception issue while the GOP is framing it as a matter of religious liberty.
Public perception would likely be much different as to the stance of the Obama administration on religious liberty if the press had given even more than a passing glance to the recent Supreme Court case wherin the Obama administration sued a church, essentially arguing that the government, rather than the church itself, ought to be able to decide who it hires and fires:
"The facts of the case were described in USA TODAY last spring: A former teacher at a church-run Lutheran grade school sued the church for disability-based discrimination after the church rescinded her "call" as a "commissioned minister" and fired her as a third- and fourth-grade teacher. Although the federal trial court dismissed the case, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that, notwithstanding her "call," the teacher's "primary duties" were secular, rather than religious, and that the case could go forward."
The case then went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 against the administration. Given the current, divided makeup of the court, that's astounding. But the Obama administration's arguments were so completely in contradiction to the notion of religious liberty that have been protected in this nation that even the court's most left-leaning justices could not sanction it, voted to rebuke the administration and offered no counter to Chief Justice Robert's' scathing opinion:
"Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Roberts insisted, clearly and directly, that the "authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church's alone." If an antidiscrimination lawsuit attempts to interfere with such matters, the First Amendment does not permit it to proceed.
Lawyers for the federal government sided with the teacher, and advanced the bizarre position — one that no courts and very few scholars or experts endorse — that, notwithstanding the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom, secular courts should be able to second-guess most decisions made by religious communities and institutions about their ministers, and to treat them as garden variety employment-discrimination cases. This view was characterized by the chief justice as "remarkable," "extreme," and "untenable," and it received no support, from any of the justices."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-11/hosanna-tabor-church-state-case/52500140/1
One wonders what percentage of the American public are even aware of what the administration tried to do here, how their efforts were chastised and dismissed UNANIMOUSLY by a divided court, and how that ties into the current debate over the Obamacare mandates. Not a lot of people even know about this, because most of the media didn't even report it except in passing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrFeb 25, 2012
I'm guessing that most independents, like me, consider "religious liberties" the least of our worries.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Ah, but my mutal friend, freedom of speech is in there too (1st Amendment) any part of it falls it all falls.
drcrankFeb 25, 2012
Short synopsis: 51% of Americans' brains have been bought outright by the Super PACs.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
cite? No cite then it didn't happen. Or were you just trolling?
drcrankFeb 25, 2012
Cite: the article.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
no cite, didn't happen. You may not have went to college, or perhaps went to a community college and not understand how to cite. Find a quote from the article that backs up your statement of the 51%, paste it etc.
drcrankFeb 25, 2012
It's not my fault if you're lazy.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
no cite? didn't happen.
drcrankFeb 25, 2012
It is painfully obvious that you have not noticed that this is not a university dissertation but is in fact a messageboard on DIGG.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
hey i got paid you sucker butts!
super pacs gonna buy me bitches and britches
bitches & britches
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
I want a hamburger which I will gladly repay the govt. on tuesday.
laurahoustonFeb 25, 2012
Obama does it again, that singing! ref http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AijEQN6AuRs
paultripFeb 25, 2012
Well the republican party has taken care of that! Look at the knuckle heads they are giving us as a choice.
rethreadFeb 26, 2012
My opinion: Congress is so dividedly f**ked up to the point of being poisonous to the United States at this point. The President is just one guy trying to get everyone to compromise, but, they're too busy dividing each other through ideology rather than decisions to better the people they represent as a whole.
The country as swung so far to the right that the play book is being borrowed from Iran at this point, and I'm not very f**king happy about that. The measuring stick for that has gone over to the next state in that regard. Shi'ite, Sunni, Christian, it's like a f**king holy war people are getting caught up in and that's for fanatics, NOT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. That has NO place in this society.
Congress needs to pull their britches up like big boys, and girls, and work with the President (whoever the hell it is) and fix the goddamn country. And I'm not talking New World Order... Infrastructure, healthcare, education, national defense. In that order. I have no use for "ideological differences". I don't f**king pay you to go to church. Or Mosque. Or pray to Mecca. Pay very close attention to what I've pointed out.
I'm going to say it again.
Infrastructure, healthcare, education, national defense. In that order.
There is no gay marriage, death penalty, abortion, or religion on the table of Congress. IT DOES NOT EXIST FOR CONGRESS, or THE PRESIDENT. The Supreme Court... I'm going to leave this out for them, as everyone should, it's a lifetime appointment for a reason.
I'll not be running around belittling other countries for the way they run things. I'll just, in a very broad sweep of the brush, say the U.S. govn't is f**king up. When parents cuss, someone has very badly screwed up. When we use your middle name "STATES" you have screwed up, and are being called to the table for a horrible little chat, to cause regret for your mistakes.
I am not pleased with govn't, I don't curse or use middle names lightly. IMHO we have a good leader of a piss poor crew in Congress who aren't worthy of choosing the winning side of a race between roaches. I'm VERY, very disappointed. The past few years could have gone so much better. I commend our current President on what he has accomplished with what he has to work with.
I know there are some good ones out there. I've seen them creeping around behind closed doors and hiding, so I'll not condemn all of them. Just most of them. We elected Obama because he's a decent guy. He still is. He's still leading, Congress is not following and the country including me is not exactly happy with their failure to agree on how they're going about fixing the house. Our house. Our home. The U.S.
Govn't needs to get their s**t together, or get out. I'm talking to you Congress. See where I cursed and who I pointed at? we are not a christian nation. we are not a muslim nation. We are building a house. Make note of the suddenly lower case.
I do write for my own enjoyment. Everybody should, even you freaks out there, I've seen you too, nothing to be ashamed of. Some of the finest people I've ever met lurk in the shadows.
Write your Representative in Govn't today. Express your feelings about how things are working or not working for you. How you think OUR house might be made better.
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
It's Sunday, you have the time for a quick jab, or handshake, to your representative in Government. I'm talking to YOU, not the fanatics with these folks on speed dial. I'm talking to YOU America.
We can be better than this, we should have a better house than this, and it's a work in progress. *Shark leaps from background pool* and I go away now.
jntcarticlesFeb 25, 2012
People need to make a personal unbiased decisions and support someone with better approach in leading this country that is losing its grip to stability because of misdirected principles. People should not follow and or get brainwashed by someone who is a talking head of anything fed to him before the kleig lights on and extreme ideology.
Strong leadership understands what are causing the problems, what people are going through, what techniques must be implemented to deviate further deterioration, how can we improve society, who will play a fair share and get involved, what is your role in advancing this country, and how do you support advancement - fortunately Obama demonstrate these qualities ~
gkiltzFeb 25, 2012
Given the alternative...
freeformjazzFeb 24, 2012
I dont care what you call him. The shrill left will call him center right but vote for him anyways (so devoted these leftists). And the rest will probably vote for Romney. Oh hurray we all lose. He is no better or worse than anyone running except maybe Ron Paul.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
ok smartass, what Obama act proves your point? On every single issue he has catered to the right, so my point is proven. Show me the far left legislation he is pushing forward? Who is the one talking out of their ass now?
engelbert78Feb 25, 2012
The problem is how we define left and right. They are mostly the same now, with some issues that get trumped up when necessary to drive the single-issue voters. Both major parties are authoritarian. The Republicans want to use the force of government to make people moral, as they define it, and the Democrats want to use the force of government to make people charitable. Neither works very well, especially in the long run.
Both parties, in the last several administrations, have spent a lot of money meddling with and mishandling foreign and domestic policy. The major issues right now are the economy and jobs, and the only candidate who has the knowledge and a workable plan to fix it is Ron Paul. Forget about social issues at the national level, they are a distraction at this point.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tyhoFeb 25, 2012
Only addressing your first point:
You really don't know what you're talking about. Left and Right are diametrically opposed on so many issues, you would have to be ignorant of these differences to make that statement. That's not to say corruption of special interests has not infiltrated both parties.
It's a given that all laws are a form of legislating morality, whether it be stealing, insider trading, copyright, etc...
Take the contraception mandate, for instance.
Republican's want to preserve individual freedom to not pay for what their conscience forbids. Democrats want to mandate it for all, regardless of others personal liberty in this regard.
engelbert78Feb 25, 2012
I agree with you on the contraception mandate. Let me explain my first point better. The parties have opposing viewpoints on many issues, certainly, but they both use the force of government to achieve their ideals. This is authoritarian. Diametrically opposed to that is the libertarian position, that government should only do what is absolutely necessary to protect against force and fraud, with the extreme being no government. I don't hold that extreme view, however.
Framing the issues simply as left versus right misses an important aspect, or axis, of the political landscape. Another commenter linked to the political compass website, which shows that all current candidates except Ron Paul are very authoritarian on average on the libertarian/authoritarian scale, and all, including Paul, are right of center on the fiscal scale. They will differ on a variety of issues, but on average, excluding Paul, they're not much different in their methodologies.
tyhoFeb 25, 2012
I agree with you here. Paul is different, and there is a lot to like. While I have conservative values, I prefer a small, limited government, like Paul, and like the Tea Party is espousing.
I don't think the founders envisioned a government involved all aspects of our lives. I would prefer to go on living my life and not worry about all this s**t. Unfortunately, the left-wing has become so strident in dragging us toward the socialistic welfare state, I'm forced to be aware of their activities, so I can be there to fight, and be heard. In the past, their moves were quieter-- insidious-- now with this President, they are in the open for all to see.
ancientshoesFeb 26, 2012
yeah, allowing gays in the military is really 'catering to the right'
chassupFeb 24, 2012
47% don't can't understand the question, or care.
countess666Feb 24, 2012
you are off by 4%.
leodinFeb 24, 2012
Obama has many problems, but being "too liberal" definitely is not one of them. Conservatives are just f**king deluded and will say anything to get at him, whether it's factual or not. It's actually a lot like how liberals acted when Bush was president - there were plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Bush, but they'd f**king say anything.
And speaking of Bush, that's the real problem here - Obama has done jack s**t to undo all the damage Bush caused, and in fact seems to be carrying on the Bush legacy. Does that make him liberal? Does that make him conservative? I don't really see that as a liberal or conservative issue, it's just that he maintains the status quo. Though to be fair, as a libertarian, I sometimes have a hard time seeing the difference between liberal and conservative - both sides seem to support the idea of big spending and big government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smpaisnutrientsFeb 24, 2012
'hasnt done jack s**t' is an over exaggeration.
johnnysoftwareFeb 25, 2012
We have Wisconsin cheese too just going to waste.
rethreadFeb 26, 2012
People don't, or do, get the reference. It could have been phrased better, I think.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/us-wisconsin-recall-sheboygan-idUSTRE81L09R20120222
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_e2215c22-099b-11e1-ad6f-001cc4c002e0.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-17/politics/politics_wisconsin-walker-recall_1_party-chairman-mike-tate-collective-bargaining-rights-signatures?_s=PM:POLITICS
He's a drunk is the spin, he screwed his people for opportunity and profit is more likely the reality.
I like to keep it simple, most things are. Personally, I'm fairly certain Congress is out on that same limb right now, not the President. Just my opinion.
I'm a personal fan of Occam's Razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
*starts chopping branch*
al3efromanFeb 25, 2012
'Though to be fair, as a libertarian, I sometimes have a hard time seeing the difference between liberal and conservative - both sides seem to support the idea of big spending and big government."
You are absolutely correct that both parties are clearly enamored with government growth. I think you are narrowing your focus too much if you that means you can't see the difference. To my mind, the difference is where they want to see that growth. It is most visible when you look at where that government chooses to spend/intervene.
To that end, I am growing weary of the libertarian mantra of having a hard time "seeing the difference". This mindset just demonstrates the extremely narrow range of issues important to the folks of the libertarian movement. I don't say this to be condescending. Libertarians have every right to be single-issue voters. There is a lot of benefit to focusing your message. That said, it is not incredibly surprising that someone who's overriding political ideology is less government would only rate those parties that do not fully espouse that same small-government view on their singular criteria. That doesn't make the other parties the same. It just means you don't care about the other aspects.
This same narrow criteria is why I suspect that so many folks are willing to overlook the downright kooky aspects of Ron Paul. Many just care about the overall small-government message and don't really care about his positions on things like laws that protect civil rights or access to health care services, regardless of the state in which you reside. To each their own and such, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't care about other issues, too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leodinFeb 25, 2012
I suppose I was over-exaggerating when I said that I can't see the difference. I know there are differences between the two parties, and I know that they want to increase government in different areas. My point was more that regardless of which party, they support things that I fundamentally oppose, and thus I can't look past those issues.
Regarding Ron Paul, I've stated in the past that I don't really feel comfortable with him - he's certainly better than any other current candidate, but I still disagree with him on some important issues. Rather than wishing for him specifically to be president, I just wish he were closer to the benchmark by which candidates were judged.
sdonaldFeb 25, 2012
Ron Paul is the KKK wet dream! He hates black people, Latinos, gays, Asians and non-Christians.
If he showed up to a debate wearing a red robe and hood with a burning cross behind him he would be perfectly in character.
Don't believe me? Just read his newsletters from the 1990s. They're all online for your reading pleasure.
If he got elected he'd be burning books, ban birth control, force all government services to be administered by Christian churches and we'd have death camps for non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual Americans.
Read the book "A Handmaid's Tale" or see the movie and you'll get a general picture of what the Ron Paul vision of America would be like.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Paul is a nut. But he has a consistent kind of crazy. You have to give him kudos for that. Manson was Jesus one day and the devil the next, but Paul is always that same weird amalgamation of Ayn Rand and Hannibal Lector.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leonard2Feb 25, 2012
Substitute Obama for Paul in your comment and you might have a bit of credibility there.
Ron Paul 2012
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
You think Obama resembles Ayn Rand? I think you need to look again. Among other things, his IQ is way too high.
rethreadFeb 26, 2012
None of the current Republican candidates would be fit to be my sitting President. All of them are so far to the right, they may as well of been spawned in North Korea. I've deleted far, far worse than I've posted. I'm having a bad day, personally.
Obama may cause dissent, but, it's a good dissent that the country needs, IMO. A healthy dissent; I should leave now. I should leave right now.
PS: Do try to refrain from insulting the sitting President of the United States if you are from the U.S. Makes ya look like you crapped the bed and are rolling around in it.
schneider430Feb 24, 2012
He just wants to please everybody. This could be clever, just try to consider it from this perspective.
ferretmanFeb 26, 2012
No surprise here, other than I'm mildly shocked that this is out of a USA Today/Gallup poll as they generally have a liberal slant.
America is quite solidly a middle-right nation--always has been. Obama got elected because he was "not Bush", NOT because of a great swing to the liberal/socialist view on the part of the heartland.
Past time to correct the mistake.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rethreadFeb 26, 2012
Truth is never "shocking" to anyone. We all see what is going on around us with our own eyes. That you mention "a liberal slant" blatantly labels you, for instance, in what we cannot see and presume to rely on "a reliable source."
Those are few and far between lately as so much money is being thrown around. I merely question... where did all that money to influence people come from? Why did you specify Liberal? What in your opinion is liberal?
I agree, it's past time to correct the mistake. You should start right now with your definition of Liberal. Begin.
ancientshoesFeb 25, 2012
anyone who doesn't think allowing gays is extreme needs a dose of reality
whatsurpointFeb 25, 2012
Anyone who thinks gays need to be 'allowed' needs a dose of reality and a vaccine against idiocy. Being gay is not a permission thing, it is a personality type common in the entire animal kingdom, not just humans. Only us humans are arrogant enough to think we have a say in it.
On the other hand, being a moron really should be a permission thing.
magghuindiaFeb 25, 2012
Nice info.
http://sarkaaree-naukri.blogspot.in/
exspasticcomicsFeb 25, 2012
what?!?
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
The half of Americans who pay NO income taxes think he's great.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
yeah because it was prob so different then the ones who didnt pay under Bush right?
countess666Feb 24, 2012
yes because the poor are clearly all democrats...
o wait! it usually the poorer states that are republican.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
you pay? cause i doubt you do.
i pay and i probably pay for you too.
just say thank you
countess666Feb 25, 2012
what's stopping me from saying: i know i pay, and i think you dont.
this is the internet, neither of us can prove our point, so why the hell did you make it?
you can't prove a thing and sound like a douche doing it.
concusionFeb 25, 2012
id love to know what bluto does for a living, because unless its delivering pizzas, he's way in over his head.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Yes, I have no doubt you would.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
i never do anything unless i am in over my head
i am on SSI
alcohol and diabetes due to overweight
you could say i am a type 2 digger
mlw4428Feb 25, 2012
I know I pay and I know my job is about 300 times more important and useful than yours.
I probably make more too AND the company is a not-for-profit.
Don't cry too hard for being a failure at life.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Yes, yes, you are sooooo important and your job too, whatever helps you get through the day.
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
mlw makes me smile
sdonaldFeb 25, 2012
That's mostly because poor people are not only poor but stone-stupid and would pick up a downed power wire and ask "What's this?" except they'd be dead before they could ask.
Only uneducated people with no compassion for others could possibly be conservatives and I am well aware this is going to get about 10,000 "thumbs-down".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whatsurpointFeb 25, 2012
Even if that is true, does it occur to you that the Republican ways are guaranteed to keep them poor in perpetuity?
al3efromanFeb 25, 2012
I think if you took a look at a map indicating political affiliation per county/state and then look at who is collecting more than they are giving to the federal money pool, you might feel mighty foolish about this statement.
johnnysoftwareFeb 25, 2012
Case in point: Texas!
Texas fielded not one but two of the candidates for the Republican party to President 2012 election. They both claim they are against big federal spending and having 'some pay for others'.
But, man, that state can sop up the gravy!
Texas last year proposed a budget that would 'soak' $4.3 billion of federal stimulus money up, to say nothing of all the other federal spending that goes to Texas.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/texas-house-budget-proposes-sweeping-cuts/
Texas candidates & politicians say federal spending and FEMA is unnecessary for disasters. But guess whose politicians cried "wolf!" to FEMA and federal authorities almost every month of last year, practically ceaselessly declaring themselves [ironically] in a "state of disaster".
And what was this disaster?
The weather! It's getting HOTTER and it is getting DRYER in Texas.
So consequently, they are running out of water and getting hotter, dryer, and catching on fire a lot. 0.o
It's the "spontaneous combust me" state.
Sounds to me like a 'warming' problem. Nosiree! Texas industrial political interests wave one placating hand at us assuring us there is no global warming, with the other stuck out because their state is perpetually burning up due to the heat!
I'm sorry but if Texas is not the worst offender then other red states must really be sopping up the gravy, waving their bread in the air, and crying "wolf!" like nobody's business.
Here's a similarly pseudo conservative, farming + technology state, Virginia for comparison to Texas.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/virginia_state_spending.html
Virginia is spending about ten billion dollars in federal money in 2012, you can see above.
Now, Texas. It is spending TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS in federal money and all it talks about is everyone should pay for their own stuff!
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/texas_state_spending.html
Virtually every fiscal crisis the US has had with a bubble bursting in the past 30 years has had as one of its main epicenters, Texas. This goes for the S&L crisis, the sub prime mortgage loan "securities" crisis, ENRON/pension/401K fund crisis, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Governor_of_Texas
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Agreed. A lot of the super rich like him. They know he has a better shot of rebounding the economy than the republicans. They love their tax breaks, but they don't really want their businesses to fail.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Or those "super rich like him" because he promised to do things that would benefit them. Steer public money their way. Especially the unions.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
You want to try that comment again? This time AFTER you've thought about it.
azmobiFeb 25, 2012
http://azmobi.net - Crack Mobile - sale off Iphone, ipad