Displaying 3,361 To 3,390 Of 3,698 Comments What’s the “issue”? » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 1:19 pm I think the fact that so much of TARP is now being paid back is a sign that the program wasn’t such a bad move. But we do need more direct job stimulus. We’ll get some job creation when we get our renewable energy package and the health care bill passed. All of these things are linked together. But the way our media works, we get news in dribs and drabs and it’s hard to see the big picture and the overall strategy. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 1:16 pm Wow, HP, paranoid much? escribicat, could that suggestion have come from HP staff? » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 1:11 pm Yes, that’s what I’m saying. There seems to be a “stalker” on the editorial staff. 🙂 » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 1:09 pm The previous main on the three conservatives who agree w bringing KSM to the U.S., and the current main about jobs. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 12:57 pm I’m talking about the main articles on HP today — they were both PPOV knockoffs. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 12:40 pm AdLib, I’m wondering if PPOV has a stalker. Check out the HP main. I think you have the right idea. The banks have showed that they are more interested in Wall Street stock valuations, mergers & acquisitions, CEO compensation packages, and shareholder reports than they are in the health of our economy. They were given a chance to do right by the American people. They took a pass. So now it’s the government’s turn. We need to get back the money we leant out in the TARP program and target it toward job creation and foreclosure relief. The GOP will scream about socialist giveaways and “personal responsibility.” So let them. Getting people back to work and getting this economy rolling is the only answer the Obama Administration needs to answer any conservative criticism. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 12:28 pm Political correctness, sexism, and the assault on civility I suspect that deep down inside they’d give anything to be that egghead they’re beating up on…. » Posted By nellie On November 18, 2009 @ 3:58 pm I’ll see how much I can get to online. Love me some Max! » Posted By nellie On November 18, 2009 @ 3:20 pm Yeah, that “real American” stuff really galls me, too. I was so po’d when Clinton tried that narrative. I’m Chickahominy Indian, for crying out loud. Don’t talk to me about real Americans! There’s a lot going on in that article. I get drawn in by his “culture of personal crisis” idea. And I think he’s right about her base. They’re sold on her, and anyone who attacks her is going to alienate them. Bad news for the GOP. Because she is a wackadoodle. And no reasonable person is going to entrust our country to her dysfunctional personality. She is truly fringe. And she’s going to marginalize the GOP base until they are, electorally speaking, irrelevant. » Posted By nellie On November 18, 2009 @ 2:59 pm I agree with you. Not that I’m a clinician, but I’ve had some first hand experience w this disorder, like you have. » Posted By nellie On November 18, 2009 @ 2:37 pm That’s a great article. The paragraphs leading up to your excerpt are also worth posting: “If Palin is indeed a cancer on the GOP, why can’t the Republican establishment retire her to a quiet life of moose hunting in the political wilderness? Why has her appeal only increased in the wake of her catastrophic political expeditions? Why won’t she listen to, or abide by, conventional political wisdom? “The answer lies beyond the realm of polls and punditry in the political psychology of the movement that animates and, to a great degree, controls, the Republican grassroots–a uniquely evangelical subculture defined by the personal crises of its believers and their perceived persecution at the hands of cosmopolitan elites.” » Posted By nellie On November 18, 2009 @ 2:34 pm I like Max Blumenthal’s take on Palin’s popularity. His culture of personal crisis theory makes a lot of sense to me. It explains a lot of GOP craziness. “I also describe her as the archetype of the right-wing woman. You know, in 2005 I was able to meet someone named Leslee Unruh, who helped craft the Bush administration » Posted By nellie On November 18, 2009 @ 1:44 pm And the same to you. I’m really glad you pointed out that glitch. I may do a rewrite and look at the point when the usage got co-opted. The connection to sexism was the main focus for me, and I can keep that train of thought. It’s good to be among those in the know! » Posted By nellie On November 18, 2009 @ 7:26 am I can’t even imagine. I’m beginning to think we should require all political candidates to take the DSM IV. LOL! » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 9:09 pm Too funny!!! » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 9:00 pm I think she’s a narcissist. Everything is about Sarah. She’s a victim. She’s a hero. She can’t tell the truth. The only time she shows any feeling is when she thinks she’s been wronged. It’s classic. I think she should have her own talk show. She is a communications major, after all. Then we’d be rid of her on the political scene, and she could give her narcissism a good workout every day. A win win for everyone. Just so I don’t have to watch! » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 8:46 pm After they finished having breakfast w Papa Bush. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 8:31 pm omg LOL! Sarah is a one-woman comedy routine. She’s posing in shorts, pantyhose, and the American flag. She’s winking at her audiences during speeches. And she complains about sexism. Hilarious. Today, some guy called into a radio show to say that the left picks on Sarah because she’s attractive and a mother. As if there are no attractive mothers who are democrats!!!! The right wing’s cognitive dissonance when it comes to women is beyond repair. I guess they want every woman to be a gun-slinging mama who shoots wolves from helicopters and can’t put a coherent thought together. It’s beyond understanding!! » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 8:28 pm I hope Schaeffer’s concerns are not escaping the attention of the FBI. They have already prevented a number of attempts against Barack. I’m just saying, nothing had better happen to that man. And that’s all I’m going to say about that. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 8:13 pm Well darn — I thought this was a right wing fabrication, but you are absolutely correct (!). This is from wikipedia: Early usages » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 8:06 pm Kalima, this is so important — what you posted. The conservative assault on Mr. Obama’s good protocol is also a slap in the face of Japanese culture. It’s inexcusable. The right wing keeps narrowing and narrowing its base to paranoid xenophobic bigots. And they are all the more hideous because those who push these ideas don’t even believe them. They are counting on the worst impulses in the American people. I’m thankful every day that our country has turned a corner — and there seems to be no turning back. Still, I think it’s important to call out these lies and manipulations. Because too many people (usually those with big media megaphones) repeat them. And before you know it, their nonsense has become part of our “mainstream.” » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 4:55 pm Thanks KQ. I am fascinated by the right’s ability to manipulate language to such an advantage. I wish progressives would do some work on their own messaging. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 3:27 pm Polling Justice: 6 in 10 Americans Disagree with Adhering to U.S. Rule of Law Interesting how his world view changes depending on his political aspirations…. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 11:27 am Well said, Kalima! It’s hard to understand how terrorism can be an act of war when there’s no country involved. As Randi Rhodes used to say about the “war on terror” — I can’t fight this feeling any more. » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 9:06 am Weekly Seminar: What number of parties leads to the most progressive politics? I’ve been reading a lot of folks online who agree with you. My complaint with the two-party paradigm is that it inevitably devolves into a team sport, where truth and reason become less important than loyalty to the team. I think this is less likely when more parties are involved in the mix. » Posted By nellie On November 16, 2009 @ 10:29 pm Not that IRV would make parties irrelevant — that it would make the *number* of parties irrelevant. I think parties are a good thing, although I’m coming to that conclusion very recently. » Posted By nellie On November 16, 2009 @ 9:01 pm My post on the first Seminar article was not really about my experience with the Greens. That came up only tangentially. My point really was that with a system like Instant Runoff Voting, the number of parties is irrelevant, because they are weeded out by the voting system. The strongest party emerges as the winner in each election. Which makes the idea of an “ideal” number of parties beside the point. If a candidate can win votes, he can form his or her own party for the purpose of his or her candidacy–much as Joe Lieberman did with his “Connecticut for Lieberman Party.” Or, if we need a less onerous example, as Teddy Roosevelt did with the “Progressive Party.” Taking the political party as an organizing principle, on the other hand, I would advocate for the minimum number of parties to prevent the political process from deteriorating into a football game, to allow lies to be countered effectively, and to present genuine alternative principles. George Washington believed NO parties was the answer. That the candidate should run on his or her own principles and that parties only corrupted the political process. There was a time when I agreed with George, but I don’t think I do any more. And although I don’t belong to any political party at the moment, the Green platform does represent my philosophy. I guess the question is — how many major political philosophies are there to be found in humanity. That would be my answer. Five? I did a limited amount of research, because I would need journals to do this right. Here are a few links that I offer as my “research”: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t715r24g80t85674/ » Posted By nellie On November 16, 2009 @ 7:23 pm Three Prominent Conservatives Warn of “Scaremongering” in Gitmo Closing Hey, KQuark — HP must have seen your story here. It’s the main right now: » Posted By nellie On November 17, 2009 @ 7:07 am The right wing has made itself so obnoxious and shallow lately, I’m hoping most people just tune them out. I know my family does. On the other hand, progressives are losing a great opportunity to unify a national movement. It’s a shame shame shame. I’m as upset about it as you are. » Posted By nellie On November 16, 2009 @ 5:08 pmComments Posted By nellie
[edit]In the USA
The earliest citation is not politically correct, found in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), denoting that the statement under judgment is literally incorrect, as understood in the eighteenth-century US:
http://themoderatevoice.com/19053/political-parties-how-many-are-too-many/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/04/two_parties_two_choices.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/conservative-trio-support_n_358928.html
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats