The dirty word...

cream919 wrote:Liberalism!! So I get this political mailing yesterday breathlessly urging me to support our beloved president by voting republican across the board. And why? To stop the "liberal" agenda of course. The great scourge of our country...LIBERALISM!!!!! Of course it goes without saying that the faces on the front of this mailing were Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer!! The usual suspects.

Nothing really new here...we've seen this all before in mailings, television ads, town hall meetings, speeches by Trump and all his cronies...blah, blah, blah. It's been going on for, well, decades. So my question is this...when was the last time you saw a left wing politician use the term "conservatism" disparagingly and portray it as something bad and negative in their advertising, speeches...any fucking thing!!!??? 

Yeah...that's what I thought.

No wonder the right has the left flinching like a bunch of snowflakes and candy-asses.

cream919 wrote:Liberalism!! So I get this political mailing yesterday breathlessly urging me to support our beloved president by voting republican across the board. And why? To stop the "liberal" agenda of course. The great scourge of our country...LIBERALISM!!!!! Of course it goes without saying that the faces on the front of this mailing were Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer!! The usual suspects.

Nothing really new here...we've seen this all before in mailings, television ads, town hall meetings, speeches by Trump and all his cronies...blah, blah, blah. It's been going on for, well, decades. So my question is this...when was the last time you saw a left wing politician use the term "conservatism" disparagingly and portray it as something bad and negative in their advertising, speeches...any fucking thing!!!??? 

Yeah...that's what I thought.

No wonder the right has the left flinching like a bunch of snowflakes and candy-asses.

blondy28 wrote:

cream919 wrote:Liberalism!! So I get this political mailing yesterday breathlessly urging me to support our beloved president by voting republican across the board. And why? To stop the "liberal" agenda of course. The great scourge of our country...LIBERALISM!!!!! Of course it goes without saying that the faces on the front of this mailing were Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer!! The usual suspects.

Nothing really new here...we've seen this all before in mailings, television ads, town hall meetings, speeches by Trump and all his cronies...blah, blah, blah. It's been going on for, well, decades. So my question is this...when was the last time you saw a left wing politician use the term "conservatism" disparagingly and portray it as something bad and negative in their advertising, speeches...any fucking thing!!!??? 

Yeah...that's what I thought.

No wonder the right has the left flinching like a bunch of snowflakes and candy-asses.

The Republicans are very good at using language to elicit a response.  I think when you're dealing with low information voters, a few buzzwords is all it takes.  Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros. In Illinois it's Mike Madigan.  Our douche bag representative, Peter Roskam, has TV ads and print ads comparing his opponent to Mike Madigan, who is the Illinois State House Speaker.  He refers to them both as "shady politicians".  The thing is, Sean Casten, Roskam's opponent, has never run for elected office.  He's a businessman and environment scientist.  And apparently as "shady politician" like Mike Madigan.  Our soon-to-be-one-term governor Bruce Rauner has ads that talk about him being the only one who can stand up to Mike Madigan.  Every politician in the state has an ad referencing Mike Madigan.  It's very lazy, but it works for these low information folks.  Taxes is another one.  They'll lose their mind if our state taxes increase by 1%, but don't blink about college costing $200,000/child.  They seem to have no clue that it's a shell game.  They just need to hear the word "taxes".

I promise that I think as little about Mitch McConnell as the right feels about Nancy Pelosi, I'm sure the Koch brothers give more to right wing politicians than George Soros does on the left, and "traditional values" or "conservationism" are words/phrases that evoke a very negative response in me, but it would take a lot more that dropping a few of those names/phrases in an ad to sway me.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Maybe I don't follow state politics enough, but is there some reason that I'm supposed to be terribly afraid of Madigan?  Granted, the state is in a bit of a financial bind, but is that Madigan's fault or the fault of all of the folks that have held power in this state over the past 30 yrs?  

Pursuant to Kevin's comments, it appears that the green light for unlimited money in US politics has opened up a lot of really ugly doors.  I remember when Obama warned us this would be the result during one of his SOTU speeches and doofus Alito mouthed "not true."  I guess we know who was right and who was talking out of his rear end.

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Maybe I don't follow state politics enough, but is there some reason that I'm supposed to be terribly afraid of Madigan?  Granted, the state is in a bit of a financial bind, but is that Madigan's fault or the fault of all of the folks that have held power in this state over the past 30 yrs?  

Pursuant to Kevin's comments, it appears that the green light for unlimited money in US politics has opened up a lot of really ugly doors.  I remember when Obama warned us this would be the result during one of his SOTU speeches and doofus Alito mouthed "not true."  I guess we know who was right and who was talking out of his rear end.

You should be more worried about state politics. Local and state politics affect you much more closely than national politics. National politics just get more publicity.


Madigan has pretty much held the power in the state for the past 30 years, so I think you have just answered your own question. I'm against term limits, as I believe they take my rights away as a voter. However, I do think that leadership positions need to have time limits.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Maybe I don't follow state politics enough, but is there some reason that I'm supposed to be terribly afraid of Madigan?  Granted, the state is in a bit of a financial bind, but is that Madigan's fault or the fault of all of the folks that have held power in this state over the past 30 yrs?  

Pursuant to Kevin's comments, it appears that the green light for unlimited money in US politics has opened up a lot of really ugly doors.  I remember when Obama warned us this would be the result during one of his SOTU speeches and doofus Alito mouthed "not true."  I guess we know who was right and who was talking out of his rear end.

You should be more worried about state politics. Local and state politics affect you much more closely than national politics. National politics just get more publicity.


Madigan has pretty much held the power in the state for the past 30 years, so I think you have just answered your own question. I'm against term limits, as I believe they take my rights away as a voter. However, I do think that leadership positions need to have time limits.

Madigan holds the power in one chamber.  I've seen a number of both Dem and GOP governors.  It's not like he could do whatever he wanted.  

On a separate note, Kevin, has the state come up with any kind of pension agreement for you teacher-folk?  I seem to recall that the plan they hatched 6 yrs ago was struck down in a high court.  Is it back in limbo?  If you were retiring right now at the age of 65, would you get what was originally promised?

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I'm well aware that Madigan is the main guy.  You can't live in Illinois and not know that.  I'm just saying he's not the only guy.  He's the speaker of the House.  He has a lot of pull.  Still, he's one chamber.  There's a senate and a governor.  I don't follow the state enough to know why there is all of the rancor against him, but one can safely assume that when you hear the complaining about the mess Illlinois is in, it's at least a loose indictment of Madigan.  

Glad to hear you think your situation is in good standing.  I know an awful lot of teachers who chose that career for a number of reasons, but ONE of which was very much based upon the retirement they receive.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I'm well aware that Madigan is the main guy.  You can't live in Illinois and not know that.  I'm just saying he's not the only guy.  He's the speaker of the House.  He has a lot of pull.  Still, he's one chamber.  There's a senate and a governor.  I don't follow the state enough to know why there is all of the rancor against him, but one can safely assume that when you hear the complaining about the mess Illlinois is in, it's at least a loose indictment of Madigan.  

Glad to hear you think your situation is in good standing.  I know an awful lot of teachers who chose that career for a number of reasons, but ONE of which was very much based upon the retirement they receive.

Madigan has no more pull than any other long-term politician in any state.  The Republicans have done a good job creating a local boogeyman just as they have national ones.  My current state congressman claims that his opponent had to make a promise to support Madigan.  His snatchy "consultant" said that "it's all true".  I asked if she could show me where the democratic challenger had to make such a promise.  Crickets.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I'm well aware that Madigan is the main guy.  You can't live in Illinois and not know that.  I'm just saying he's not the only guy.  He's the speaker of the House.  He has a lot of pull.  Still, he's one chamber.  There's a senate and a governor.  I don't follow the state enough to know why there is all of the rancor against him, but one can safely assume that when you hear the complaining about the mess Illlinois is in, it's at least a loose indictment of Madigan.  

Glad to hear you think your situation is in good standing.  I know an awful lot of teachers who chose that career for a number of reasons, but ONE of which was very much based upon the retirement they receive.

Madigan has no more pull than any other long-term politician in any state.  The Republicans have done a good job creating a local boogeyman just as they have national ones.  My current state congressman claims that his opponent had to make a promise to support Madigan.  His snatchy "consultant" said that "it's all true".  I asked if she could show me where the democratic challenger had to make such a promise.  Crickets.

I don't rule out that he has some kind of undue, excessive power that goes above what a normal Speaker might have.  I'm just not sure what kind of pull he has to force the Senate majority leader or the Governor to play along by his rules.  I'd think they could tell him to go fuck off.  Rauner seemed able to do that.  

I think the word you were looking for above was "cunty" and not snatchy.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I'm well aware that Madigan is the main guy.  You can't live in Illinois and not know that.  I'm just saying he's not the only guy.  He's the speaker of the House.  He has a lot of pull.  Still, he's one chamber.  There's a senate and a governor.  I don't follow the state enough to know why there is all of the rancor against him, but one can safely assume that when you hear the complaining about the mess Illlinois is in, it's at least a loose indictment of Madigan.  

Glad to hear you think your situation is in good standing.  I know an awful lot of teachers who chose that career for a number of reasons, but ONE of which was very much based upon the retirement they receive.

Madigan has no more pull than any other long-term politician in any state.  The Republicans have done a good job creating a local boogeyman just as they have national ones.  My current state congressman claims that his opponent had to make a promise to support Madigan.  His snatchy "consultant" said that "it's all true".  I asked if she could show me where the democratic challenger had to make such a promise.  Crickets.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I'm well aware that Madigan is the main guy.  You can't live in Illinois and not know that.  I'm just saying he's not the only guy.  He's the speaker of the House.  He has a lot of pull.  Still, he's one chamber.  There's a senate and a governor.  I don't follow the state enough to know why there is all of the rancor against him, but one can safely assume that when you hear the complaining about the mess Illlinois is in, it's at least a loose indictment of Madigan.  

Glad to hear you think your situation is in good standing.  I know an awful lot of teachers who chose that career for a number of reasons, but ONE of which was very much based upon the retirement they receive.

Madigan has no more pull than any other long-term politician in any state.  The Republicans have done a good job creating a local boogeyman just as they have national ones.  My current state congressman claims that his opponent had to make a promise to support Madigan.  His snatchy "consultant" said that "it's all true".  I asked if she could show me where the democratic challenger had to make such a promise.  Crickets.

I don't rule out that he has some kind of undue, excessive power that goes above what a normal Speaker might have.  I'm just not sure what kind of pull he has to force the Senate majority leader or the Governor to play along by his rules.  I'd think they could tell him to go fuck off.  Rauner seemed able to do that.  

I think the word you were looking for above was "cunty" and not snatchy.

Exactly.  I haven't seen a single Republican in the state who hasn't used him in their ads.  Roskam has an entire ad that is Casten morphing into Madigan.  Speaking of Roskam, Steve Scalise is coming to stump for him on Wednesday.  Scalise was on WLS this morning, and his shtick is pretty much what Aloha said.  They were talking about the democratic angry mobs, and they asked him about this weekend's events in New York.  Scalise said "yeah, but we call out the violence, the democrats don't".  Hmmmm..."good people on both sides" anyone?

cream919 wrote:Y'all have gone off the rails on what the point of my original post was. I wasn't talking about specific candidates and who's this and who's that. Indeed, that strikes me as symptomatic as to why the "conservatives" have been so successful at making "liberal" a term to be scoffed at. They have managed to attack, very successfully I might add, an entire political philosophy and make it seem to be the bane of all things American. So while democrats and "liberals" can't see the forest for the trees and get caught up in individual races and contests, the right focuses on the political party and left-wing belief system as a whole and attack by way of carpet-bombing. Fuck individual races...blow the whole philosophy out of the water and make it look bad...the individual races will then take care of themselves because dumbass and uninformed voters will hit the polls believing that "liberalism" marks the decline of American values as we know it. The result? Straight ticket Republican voting. It's worked very well for the GOP and will continue to work until the left starts fighting fire with fire. 

Do you actually think republicans give two shits about how bad their candidates are? Not when they have the "liberal" scourge to defend our country against!

And oh yeah Kevin...last time I voted in a primary I took a republican ballot because of a couple of decent friends I had running in the primaries. They didn't win so when the general election came I voted straight democrat. Still, as far as this county is concerned I'm registered as a republican. Nevertheless, the mailing I got wasn't about convincing anyone to change their mind on a specific candidate...it was all about getting the base out because Nancy Pelosi is coming to eat their first-born. Which is the whole reason I started this thread...I have not EVER seen one mailing or advertisement attempting to to get the left off their ass and to the polls so they can stop the spread of "conservatism". I guess you have to be actually organized to do such things.

cream919 wrote:Exactly Tim. And I agree about the fascist angle. If the democrats were smart they would not only point out the attack on the press, et al, but they would also tie it all in DIRECTLY to the "conservative" philosophy! Make it NOT a Trump issue but a CONSERVATIVE issue and be relentless and unforgiving about it!!!! Make Trump merely a symptom of the larger "conservative" problem and just keep hammering away. Exactly like they have with Pelosi, Clinton and their ilk. Show no fucking mercy. 

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

cream919 wrote:You're starting to see the light Rob. Fight fire with fire and show no mercy. Politics has NEVER been the most honest thing in the world to begin with but Trump and far-right "conservatives" have elevated lying to an art form. I stand in awe of them. The left has the smarts to do it...the question then becomes if they have the guts. This "go high when they go low" nonsense might look sweet on a bumper sticker but that's about all it's good for when you're going against the current GOP. 

What have you got to lose when you're getting your ass kicked anyway?

cream919 wrote:
What have you got to lose when you're getting your ass kicked anyway?

cream919 wrote:Liberalism!! So I get this political mailing yesterday breathlessly urging me to support our beloved president by voting republican across the board. And why? To stop the "liberal" agenda of course. The great scourge of our country...LIBERALISM!!!!! Of course it goes without saying that the faces on the front of this mailing were Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer!! The usual suspects.

Nothing really new here...we've seen this all before in mailings, television ads, town hall meetings, speeches by Trump and all his cronies...blah, blah, blah. It's been going on for, well, decades. So my question is this...when was the last time you saw a left wing politician use the term "conservatism" disparagingly and portray it as something bad and negative in their advertising, speeches...any fucking thing!!!??? 

Yeah...that's what I thought.

No wonder the right has the left flinching like a bunch of snowflakes and candy-asses.

cream919 wrote:Well put Jay and I couldn't agree more. I get the kneeling thing but damn....don't shoot yourself in the foot to make a point. All you're doing is making you and the political party you tend to represent appear to be anti-American because the right has jumped on it and made it about that.  There's got to be a better way. As an argument for another day I have personally NEVER understood why the national anthem is played at a sporting event to begin with...same thing for the 7th inning playing of "God Bless America". I'm probably in the minority on this but it's a fucking ball game...not a patriotic celebration. I've felt this way since I was in grade school.