Skip to main content

View Diary: Are Senate Democrats willing to fight the tax cut compromise? (416 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This situation (5+ / 0-)

    has happened 5 times so far and each time the Republicans voted to continue albeit after attempted blackmailing.

    Your argument does not hold water and you are pushing the GOP's agenda by continuing to attempt to force it.

    Sanctimonious, Self Satisfied, Liberal and Proud.

    by stevej on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 06:35:10 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah. (0+ / 0-)

      Because they knew they'd take a hiding in real political terms.

      In reality, the entire Reagan Revolution (to review for the "immediate crisis" crowd: that 30 year political/historical thing where rich people get much more fabulously rich and the rest of us get much more impoverished) is treading on ice, failed, decrepit and hanging on tenterhooks.

      If anyone was paying attention.

      A real service from Obama to take this potential hazard clean off the politicking table for the Republicans.  Just like so many other potential hazards the Republican might be facing.

      With libruls like this. . .

      well, just look around.

      Please don't feed the security state.

      •  It's precisely the liberal position. (0+ / 0-)

        The "liberal" position has always been a conservative position. The "liberal" position during MLK was that AA's should calm down and wait.

        The "liberal" position is the minimum amount of change possible to keep the status quo. They want to tweak or reform the current structure. Today, that means finding ways to save the Reagan Revolution from itself.

        The problem is liberals, themselves. Some times call for more radical positions than others. The "liberals" are a wing of the conservative position -- a particular subset of the status quo protectors.

        "Progressives" -- folks who believe in change -- make a very serious mistake by thinking of the alliance with liberalism as anything more than a temporary truce, just as the radical right makes a mistake to believe that their alliance with "conservatives" is anything more than a marriage of convenience.

        •  Do you think you get to make history up as you go (0+ / 0-)

          along? What you define as the "liberal" position was the conservative position. What you define as the "progressive" position was the liberal position.  (By the way "progressive" is just our shiny new word for liberal.) Since I am African-American and grew up in the movement, I don't have to guess what these terms mean; they are a part of my living memory. See I've been here before, I watched counter intelpro. I know exactly the kind of vicious, mindless vitriol used to turn folk against each other.

          What ya'll wanna be is "radical"! And you are not. Radicals take risks, personal risks. But ya'll, hmmmph! You're only willing to risk other peoples lives.

          •  "The movement" (0+ / 0-)

            You mean you grew up with the Kennedy's? And with NYs Rockefellers and Roosevelts? Liberals like that?

            Hung out with Truman and the small town Missourians? You know liberals?

            Liberal is an old word from the 19th century describing a pro-middle-class position that was "left-wing" in 1840. Progressive is an early 20th century word that was in opposition to liberals and other conservatives.

            The republicans are the example of liberalism before 1970. Throughout the world that is what liberal meant.

            It was intentionally elided with progressive in the mid-20th century to hide from accusations of being pinko communists. You fell for it -- and want to continue misusing a word that confuses more than enlightens.

            Just bother to look in every other country what the political party with "liberal" in it's name meant. Try to think about the historical evolution. Compare the leaders of liberalism -- if you think JFK was part of any "liberation movement", you need a pretty serious history lesson.

            Radical as well doesn't imply violence or even sacrifice. It just means outside of the mainstream. A number of "radical" parties -- parties that are extrusions of a "liberal" party -- are today "conservative" parties because they were simply outside of the mainstream back in their day.

            But keep on going with your knee-jerk thinking. This is why we can't talk worth a damn. Everyone in the US has to talk in euphemisms, code-words and proper party language.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (182)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (44)
  • Elections (41)
  • Bernie Sanders (38)
  • Culture (38)
  • 2016 (34)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • Labor (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Environment (27)
  • Rescued (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site