Who are the "high ratings" liberal commentators?

[Jesse]

In case anyone here takes your absurd misinterpretation of my position seriously, let me make absolutely clear that my point was:

In regions that have a history of discriminating, persecuting, and denying civil-rights to minorities, you would think they ought to learn from that history, and not repeat the same kinds of mistakes. But instead we see Christians in these regions today doing their best to repeat the mistakes of their history by discriminating against gay people as best they can. Apparently they have learned nothing.

These bizarre statements of yours. Do they usually work on people? I can't take serious that you believe most of what you say.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't particularly like Obama. He's far too war-hawish and corporatist and right-wing for my liking. He seems to want to drone-strike as much as possible, be the servant of big-business, and do any and every possible deal with Republicans to cut government budgets as much as possible and then more. While he's an order of magnitude better than Bush W., he's still an order of magnitude worse that I'd hoped he might be. Hillary suffers from many of the same problems. Most of the Democrat party is waaaay too Republican for my liking.

Here is a good candidate for you:

stalin.jpg

"A stopped clock is right twice a day" as the saying goes. I've got no issue with admitting even the dumbest people are occasionally right about something.

Seeing your above post, it seems if you say something, I should look it up to be sure what you said is accurate.

[Starlight]

I'd be happy with JFK or FDR or Elizabeth Warren.

Your gratuitous communism comparisons are absurd - should I start comparing you to Nazis just because you are right of center?!

[Jesse]

I'd be happy with JFK or FDR or Elizabeth Warren.

Your gratuitous communism comparisons are absurd - should I start comparing you to Nazis just because you are right of center?!

But uh...two of those are dead. Who do you consider for their place? Don't say Warren though.

[Starlight]

But uh...two of those are dead.

But uh... so is Stalin who lilpixieofterror suggested I would like as a candidate.

[Jesse]

But uh... so is Stalin who lilpixieofterror suggested I would like as a candidate.

Yeah...but...that wasn't the thrust of my question...

[Starlight]

Yeah...but...that wasn't the thrust of my question...

Bernie Sanders would be my second choice for candidate after Elizabeth Warren in the next US presidential election cycle... if that's what your somewhat confusing question was getting at?

[Jesse]

Bernie Sanders would be my second choice for candidate after Elizabeth Warren in the next US presidential election cycle... if that's what your somewhat confusing question was getting at?

I should've made a bet. I knew you were going to say Sanders.

[rogue06]

Here is a good candidate for you:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4182[/ATTACH]

Far too "war-hawish" for him.

[rogue06]

I'd be happy with JFK or FDR or Elizabeth Warren.

Your gratuitous communism comparisons are absurd - should I start comparing you to Nazis just because you are right of center?!

The JFK who strongly favored cutting tax rates?

The JFK who authorized the expansion of America's military participation in the Vietnam War?

The JFK who said "The right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution"?

The JFK who decried the expanding role of the federal government at the expense of state and local governments?

The JFK who said "I’m not comfortable with those people" when talking about liberals?

The JFK who pushed for a balanced budget?

The JFK who said "in a free enterprise system there can be no prosperity without profit"?

The JFK who said "Our primary challenge is not how to divide the economic pie, but how to enlarge it" (very Reaganesque)?

[KingsGambit]

I'd be happy with JFK or FDR or Elizabeth Warren.

Your gratuitous communism comparisons are absurd - should I start comparing you to Nazis just because you are right of center?!

Not everybody here is right of center. I'm not, for one. I'm a registered Democrat (I just happen to disagree with my party on abortion).

I do stand by my original interpretation of your statement, by the way. When LJ mentioned he was from Texas you immediately made the connection, extrapolated from your friend's experience.

[Joel]

I'd be happy with JFK or FDR or Elizabeth Warren.

Your gratuitous communism comparisons are absurd - should I start comparing you to Nazis just because you are right of center?!

FDR who interned Japanese Americans?
FDR who pushed for and implemented a (literally) fascist economic system?


Warren who is a cronyist for big bankers? Lately she's been defending the Fed against the Audit the Fed bill. And has been a consistent backer of Dodd-Frank which has benefitted big bankers at the expense of smaller competitors. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...mmunity-banks/).

[Starlight]

The JFK who...
The JFK who...
The JFK who...
The JFK who...

FDR who...
FDR who...

Jeeez, all I said was I'd be happy with them. As in overall. I wasn't giving a ringing endorsement of every view they had ever expressed on any issue ever (not that I'm necessarily agreeing the claims made about their actions/statements have any merit).

Warren who is a cronyist for big bankers?

Well that's a new one, and possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on this forum, which is saying a lot.

One of the primary reasons people like Warren is because she's one of the very few people in Washington who stands up to the big bankers and goes after them. So I guess someone is trying to get out in front of that by spreading rumors to the opposite effect?

Lately she's been defending the Fed against the Audit the Fed bill.

The Fed is the government, not the big bankers. The Bill seems (mostly) stupid.

And has been a consistent backer of Dodd-Frank

Dodd-Frank is the primary piece of legislation that congress passed after the financial crisis to regulate and reign in the big banks to stop a repeat of the financial crisis. Of course Warren was pushing for it - so was everyone who wanted to see the big bankers reigned in (ie Democrats, who voted for it, as compared to Republicans who voted against it).

There are legitimate questions to ask about Dodd-Frank, like: Did Dodd-Frank go far enough? (Warren says it didn't) Should congress have done more to reign in the big banks? (Warren says they should have) Did the lobbyists for the bankers succeed in writing enough loopholes into Dodd-Frank to render key provisions largely ineffective? (Maybe...?)

which has benefitted big bankers at the expense of smaller competitors. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...mmunity-banks/).

The study observes correlation, not causation. Even if it does turn out to be causation, I think most people would agree that having a fraction fewer smaller banks is a small price to pay for having banking regulations to prevent a repeat of the 2008 recession.

[Starlight]

That's just wrong on so many levels.

Your convincing logic and reasoned arguments have made me realize just how wrong I was.

Oh, wait, you had none at all. Nevermind.

I can't take serious that you believe most of what you say.

I think if I hadn't met people like those who are on this forum in person when I was travelling in America, I would dismiss everyone here out of hand as trolls. It took me about a week in person to come to terms with the fact that people this crazy / misinformed / passionate-yet-ignorant / credulous believers of propaganda, did actually exist, and did actually believe the words coming out of their mouths.

[Cow Poke]

Your convincing logic and reasoned arguments have made me realize just how wrong I was.

Thanks. I was getting worried.