for both sides..

It’s pretty much required by mathematics. You can still vote for whoever you want to, but unless the person you vote for gets a lot more votes than just yours alone, they’re going to lose to someone who gets more votes. The end result of trying to sway public opinion so a particular guy wins is that there has to be only two people who are technically in the running: the guy who is going to win (hopefully yours) and the guy who makes second place (and thus is the only one who can present a statistical challenge to the guy who’s going to win).

The dichotomy of how individual votes are statistically insignificant, but are nonetheless a resource that must be collected in quantity to win, means that the only closely coordinated and organized efforts (derisively called “astroturfing”) have any real chance of having an impact. I actually consider this a good thing, because if someone doesn’t have the skills to organize a winning coalition in a general election, how will they organize the bureaucracies (and military units) that would rather just extort money from people than perform a service in exchange for their paychecks?

of course they want all their drought animals to get along, after all, its expensive when your assets damage each other.

A Democrat Speech writer that you should listen to

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/08/health-care-speechwriter-for-edwards-obama-and-clinton-doesnt/

She wrote for Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

If you can’t hear us. Maybe you can hear her?

Love,

A concerned citizen who wants America to succeed and for us to prosper and grow as a nation so that my daughters can see what we see growing up.

the US has no law that requires a person who is a politician to be truthful in their registration and oath!

that is, way back in the 40s, when one could read how to’s and things, they said to enter the democratic party and register as a democrat even though they were communist. why? because the registration is a meaningless thing (which is why today they can shift from side to side fluidly).

well, after dominating the left democrats so much till the candidate from the communist party said they were no longer going to run a candidate for president any more bcause there was no way to distinguish the platforms of the communist party and the democratic party.

from there, it was just a small leap to try to load the republican base with left communist types.

their job is to vote a convincing point so that they can be painted as not beng with the dems, but for key moves/votes on the game table, they will vote with the dems.

and voila you control both sides of an issue

which means that any concept of back and forth is mostly for show depending on the mix of politicos in the soup.

one can read lots of examples of this.

two of the most notable was the take over of the Ford Foundation by communist socialists… (and ever since then its been the biggest funding arm and coordinator. a meta acorn.. )

“The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally but the abolition of bourgeois property”

“…the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to establish democracy.”

that is a class of people will take power for them in name…. this replaces a republic with an imperial democracy… like russia..

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

which has been a good description of the past few months. the destruction of the middle class… and the creatino of a two class system… property ownership and such on top, and slavery on the bottom.

Political power, properly so-called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and , as such sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

[edited for length by neo-neocon]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm

Dirty, dirty limousine leftists.

Assistant Village Idiot says:
The place to “send a message” is in the primaries. If we conservatives lack the votes (or the determination) to push aside a RINO in the primaries, it’s on our own head.

It seems less frustrating to deal with a restaurant that is always closed than one that is open sometimes and sometimes not. Intermittent frustration raises the blood pressure. But at least you eat sometimes.

Amen to Terrye and Assistant Village Idiot. These two above posts represent my views on the whole RINO issue. I strongly oppose what Snowe did, and perhaps it would be a great idea to find someone to oppose her in the primaries. But don’t expect the liberal Maine electorate to vote for a conservatve Republican over a liberal Democrat. I’d rather get “half a loaf” than none at all… or, as would be the case with a lefty Senator, a poisoned loaf. Snowe’s Senate seat represents one more seat to work with to give the GOP control of the Seanate, and take it out of the hands of the Dems.

More importantly, this is the way a stable democratic representative republic works. The extremes don’t get to have it all their way. The fact that America’s form of democracy makes change slow and gradual is what has made the United States so stable, and what has prevented it from buying the politically correct left agenda as Europe has done hook line and sinker. Thankfully, this is part of what is preventing Obama from ramming his agenda through Congress as quickly as he would like. Hopefully, it may even end up preventing passage of it entirely.

I suspect that, if those advocating extremes on both left and right actually got to see what this country would be like with their full agenda implemented, and with all the unintended results thereof, they would be immediately de-programmed from their absolutist views.