Change is in the air

[LA Reader]

[quote=briansd1]Lets assume that both parties are more or less beholden to the masters of the universe.

Do you want a party that is less beholden to the power that be? A party that will provide health care, education, social security and a social safety net for when you need it? [/quote]

Except that they are not. It was not the Republicans that was holding up the Health Care Reform. It was “Moderate” Democrats. And in the end, the current reform plan is a huge hand out to Insurance Industry.

[briansd1]

Like Obama said, let’s have an up or down vote on HCR. We’ll see who for it and who’s against it.

[briansd1]

Like Obama said, let’s have an up or down vote on HCR. We’ll see who for it and who’s against it.

[briansd1]

Like Obama said, let’s have an up or down vote on HCR. We’ll see who for it and who’s against it.

[briansd1]

Like Obama said, let’s have an up or down vote on HCR. We’ll see who for it and who’s against it.

[briansd1]

Like Obama said, let’s have an up or down vote on HCR. We’ll see who for it and who’s against it.

[briansd1]

[quote=sobmaz]
The Republicans always voted in lockstep while Democrats rarely have. One has to wonder why that is.

I know that mindless ants will march in lockstep working on auto pilot. The higher up you go up the evolutionary chain the less animals seem to be in lock step.

The point is, Democrats don’t vote in lockstep, Republicans do.

As people educate themselves on an issue you tend to have different opinions on that issue depending upon your life experiences and this is why Democrats rarely vote as a block.

Republicans on the other hand always agree on everything, is this typical human nature? Is it not knowing the issue so you vote like your colleague?

You have to wonder………………[/quote]

sobmaz, I agree with you.

Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.

[briansd1]

[quote=sobmaz]
The Republicans always voted in lockstep while Democrats rarely have. One has to wonder why that is.

I know that mindless ants will march in lockstep working on auto pilot. The higher up you go up the evolutionary chain the less animals seem to be in lock step.

The point is, Democrats don’t vote in lockstep, Republicans do.

As people educate themselves on an issue you tend to have different opinions on that issue depending upon your life experiences and this is why Democrats rarely vote as a block.

Republicans on the other hand always agree on everything, is this typical human nature? Is it not knowing the issue so you vote like your colleague?

You have to wonder………………[/quote]

sobmaz, I agree with you.

Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.

[briansd1]

[quote=sobmaz]
The Republicans always voted in lockstep while Democrats rarely have. One has to wonder why that is.

I know that mindless ants will march in lockstep working on auto pilot. The higher up you go up the evolutionary chain the less animals seem to be in lock step.

The point is, Democrats don’t vote in lockstep, Republicans do.

As people educate themselves on an issue you tend to have different opinions on that issue depending upon your life experiences and this is why Democrats rarely vote as a block.

Republicans on the other hand always agree on everything, is this typical human nature? Is it not knowing the issue so you vote like your colleague?

You have to wonder………………[/quote]

sobmaz, I agree with you.

Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.

[briansd1]

[quote=sobmaz]
The Republicans always voted in lockstep while Democrats rarely have. One has to wonder why that is.

I know that mindless ants will march in lockstep working on auto pilot. The higher up you go up the evolutionary chain the less animals seem to be in lock step.

The point is, Democrats don’t vote in lockstep, Republicans do.

As people educate themselves on an issue you tend to have different opinions on that issue depending upon your life experiences and this is why Democrats rarely vote as a block.

Republicans on the other hand always agree on everything, is this typical human nature? Is it not knowing the issue so you vote like your colleague?

You have to wonder………………[/quote]

sobmaz, I agree with you.

Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.

[briansd1]

[quote=sobmaz]
The Republicans always voted in lockstep while Democrats rarely have. One has to wonder why that is.

I know that mindless ants will march in lockstep working on auto pilot. The higher up you go up the evolutionary chain the less animals seem to be in lock step.

The point is, Democrats don’t vote in lockstep, Republicans do.

As people educate themselves on an issue you tend to have different opinions on that issue depending upon your life experiences and this is why Democrats rarely vote as a block.

Republicans on the other hand always agree on everything, is this typical human nature? Is it not knowing the issue so you vote like your colleague?

You have to wonder………………[/quote]

sobmaz, I agree with you.

Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, I hope you’re at least chuckling when you right these little epistles. You are, aren’t you?

Let’s subject your last little missive to a test, shall we? Paragraph 1 is a clear straw man, which we can ignore, but paragraph 2 is more interesting and can be objectively tested.

Let’s use a Progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson (Medicare and The Great Society programs) and the Vietnam War, which he escalated to nearly 500,000 Americans in country. Was Vietnam a good cause? Was Vietnam winnable? Was Vietnam worth the lives and treasure?

Given Obama’s present adventurism in Afghanistan, the above questions are certainly topical, timely and germane, aren’t they? So, what do you say in response to my questions above? I’m terribly curious about your answers. If you’re willing to answer, that is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, I hope you’re at least chuckling when you right these little epistles. You are, aren’t you?

Let’s subject your last little missive to a test, shall we? Paragraph 1 is a clear straw man, which we can ignore, but paragraph 2 is more interesting and can be objectively tested.

Let’s use a Progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson (Medicare and The Great Society programs) and the Vietnam War, which he escalated to nearly 500,000 Americans in country. Was Vietnam a good cause? Was Vietnam winnable? Was Vietnam worth the lives and treasure?

Given Obama’s present adventurism in Afghanistan, the above questions are certainly topical, timely and germane, aren’t they? So, what do you say in response to my questions above? I’m terribly curious about your answers. If you’re willing to answer, that is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, I hope you’re at least chuckling when you right these little epistles. You are, aren’t you?

Let’s subject your last little missive to a test, shall we? Paragraph 1 is a clear straw man, which we can ignore, but paragraph 2 is more interesting and can be objectively tested.

Let’s use a Progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson (Medicare and The Great Society programs) and the Vietnam War, which he escalated to nearly 500,000 Americans in country. Was Vietnam a good cause? Was Vietnam winnable? Was Vietnam worth the lives and treasure?

Given Obama’s present adventurism in Afghanistan, the above questions are certainly topical, timely and germane, aren’t they? So, what do you say in response to my questions above? I’m terribly curious about your answers. If you’re willing to answer, that is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, I hope you’re at least chuckling when you right these little epistles. You are, aren’t you?

Let’s subject your last little missive to a test, shall we? Paragraph 1 is a clear straw man, which we can ignore, but paragraph 2 is more interesting and can be objectively tested.

Let’s use a Progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson (Medicare and The Great Society programs) and the Vietnam War, which he escalated to nearly 500,000 Americans in country. Was Vietnam a good cause? Was Vietnam winnable? Was Vietnam worth the lives and treasure?

Given Obama’s present adventurism in Afghanistan, the above questions are certainly topical, timely and germane, aren’t they? So, what do you say in response to my questions above? I’m terribly curious about your answers. If you’re willing to answer, that is.

[Author]

Posts