5. If Sarah Palin wins the 2012 republican primary
4. They are still calling Obama a Socialist/Communist
3. They bring up Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright…AGAIN
2. Republicans still can’t work the Internet
1. If they continue to try to wage culture wars rather then providing real long term solutions
Welcome to Sensico, a political blog. Here we discuss the media, drama, policy, and other political stories.
Get Latest Blog Posts By E-Mail
Announcements and Happenings
Support Health Care Reform
New Feature: We now have a live Chat Room stop by, leave a message or start a conversation!
The following pages where updated: All Picture pages, Video pages and Pundit Watch
THIS BLOG IS A YEAR OLD: A YEAR AT SENSICO
Plus, FireFox runs faster then Internet Explorer. So I recommend getting....
 |
SO DONT COPY UNLESS YOU GIVE THIS BLOG, SENSICO, CREDIT FOR THE WORK
sensico
Yilian
Vivian
Marc
20 Comments
The reason Hillary lost is because the powers that be wanted her to lose. If they had wanted her to win, every superdelegate would have supported her, and Obama wouldn’t have had a chance. You really don’t believe this is all her fault, do you? If you do, you’re very naive about how the political process really runs.
I just want to say… GET OVER IT. Obama won fairly and Clinton lost because she has run a horrible campaign. She was a good candidate like Obama, but she couldn’t even manage a campaign. He recieved more pledged delegates and the superdelegates were not going to overturn the will of the people just for Hillary.
I completely agree with sensico on this issue. Im an ex-clinton supporter and even though I wanted her to win, I must admit that not her but her campaign was horribly run. If you notice, once mark penn resigned, hillary actually became a better candidate. I also think that Obama just played by the rules better.
To pumas4change: “the powers to be” were the people who voted. Even giving her Michigan and Florida, she still would have lost. Talk about being naive. And immature.
To Sensico: I have to say, as a Democrat, I also find Olbermann a little much to stomach. If he would just chill out a little and as you say, bring a Republican on now and then and have a real conversation, it would be much better. Even Bill Maher tries to get some Republicans on his show, and when he’s able to get a good balanced debate going, it’s great to watch. Olbermann needs to make a change.
Finally someone whos a democrat agrees with me. I mean even O’reily brings a democrat on his show, even though he yells over them when they make a good point. But my main thing are those over dramatic special comments.
but, even with the show format as it is, I really prefer when racheal maddow is hosting.
I’m not sure that most people would agree that Foxnews is the most biased network, I think NBC would be very close.
until fox news has a show where a democrat is hosting then i think fox news will always be #1 most biased. I think MSNBC is close but i did write this back in May. I do plan on updating this page and that particular top 5 as well as other pages after i redesign the blog.
Alan Colmes Cohosts Hannity and Colmes, and Geraldo is somewhat liberal, certainly not a great conservative hero. It is obvious where O’Reilly stands on the issues, but he is very fair to both sides. Van Sustern doesn’t cover much politics, at least not anything that requires an opinion.
I think Alan Colmes needs to get a backbone, Sean Hannity seems to hog the show the last time I saw it..mind you it was a while ago as I can’t stand Sean Hannity.
O Reilly is such a self centered, know it all and nobody really gets a chance to get their point of view across.
Van Sustern is just plain useless…she loved being up there in Alaska with her gal pal Sarah Palin,did she ask her any tough questions, of course not….it was like she was having a girls sleep over with Sarah Palin.
I do like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, Rachel in particular does a good serious interview and takes no nonsense.
You think O’Reilly is a self-centered know-it-all, but like Keith Olberman? At lest you didn’t use the word “biased”.
They are both self-centered if you ask me. And both bias, I happen to not find Bill O’Reilly annoying anymore, but then again I stopped watching his show a few months ago, so I have only seen him on youtube or on shows like The View. I watch Countdown every now and then and Im finding him more and more annoying. So, basically there both annoying
I agree with all of your stances on those very subjects,for Hillary Clinton did run a losing campaign(especially when she and Bill did that stupid Sopranos finale spoof commercial where she picked that forgettable Celine Dion song as her campaign theme music),Keith Olbermann can be very annoying,and it’s frightening to think about how Sarah Palin is currently the most popular and powerful Republican of the moment.
OK… you put fox news as the republican biased network. Let’s look at the big picture…. you have the fox news (who will at least put both sides of a story on the air) against the entire media, ie. New York Times, CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, CBS News, NBC news. What a surprise that Cronkite, Rather, Brokaw, Couric, Lauer, Olberman are liberals? Go outside of fox and name a conservative broadcaster! OK, I’ll give you talk radio, but then why should the taxpayer support NPR which has liberal biases also? Here’s a dose of capitalism for you… why is it that all of these liberal media outlets are struggling financially? Because nobody trusts them and won’t patronize them anymore. If the freakin media would take off their cheerleader outfits for the benefit of obama and become real reporters and actually do their job instead of blogging, maybe those at fox wouldn’t have to carry ALL the water!
4. They are still calling Obama a Socialist/Communist
Communist? Naw. Socialist? Of course he is. Any thinking person who understands socialism as a political system knows Obama is a socialist. You cannot argue those facts. Even his comments prevent an argument against it.
3. They bring up Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright…AGAIN.
Do you mean like the Dems continuing to bring up Palin?
What if a dem launched his career in the living room of a KKK Grand Dragon? Would that be ok in your eyes? No pass on that one? Then why give a pass for Obama launching his in the living room of a domestic terrorist? Why is that ok? What separates Ayers from Timothy McVeigh?
On the one hand the dems continue to rail against Palin but no one can touch Obama for his philosophies and associations with radical Marxists professors and Bill Ayers? That’s hypocrisy and bigotry. To deny your bigotry forces you to agree with your hypocrisy and to then drop your point.
2. Republicans still can’t work the Internet. Do you mean like Biden and his internet number?
1. If they continue to try to wage culture wars rather then providing real long term solutions.
What culture wars?
Real long term solutions? Like the healthcare bill the dems want to shove down America’s throat denying debate and which has within it provisions that would send private health insurers out of business and forcing America on the government’s plan? Never mind the fact we have Medicare and Medicaid, two social healthcare programs which don’t work… oh no, we have the have a third program costing Americans thousands per household in additional taxes per year. In addition, for the youth in American society who today can opt out because they have the freedom to do so will be required to adopt the government’s healtcare program or be fined.
This change thing is just fricking awesome.
Ben,
According to Marx, Socialism is just a step towards Communism.
That was true in the past-but socialism can be a system in which people seek to better humanity and still keep religion in the world-unlike communism that abolishes it.
I majored in poli sci,and I’m a socialist. I believe that all people should have access to healthcare, education, and the ability to live good, productive lives. I think drugs, abuse, hatred, and crime are all born out of harsh living conditions. So–I’m actually cool with Obama–except on the abortion issue because I’m pro-life. I didn’t vote for him because of that.
I think we are mixing terms here.
Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
In Marxist theory, it is described as the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.
I do not think the term is a relic of the past as you put it. It definition has not changed.
Based upon your description of yourself, you might be a Social Democrat.
In the early 20th century, a number of socialist and labor parties rejected revolution and other traditional teachings of Marxism and went on to take more moderate positions, which came to characterize modern social democracy. These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy. This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end capitalism altogether.
Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.
In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside democratic socialists, who stand to the left of them on the political spectrum.
No, I’m more of a socialist. I do think social structures evolve and can leave behind their outdated forms-even democracies have evolved in definition and structure. I live in the U.S. and that is not a place that is open to collective care for humanity. I am cool with individualism, but when it comes to exploitation-not so much. Thank you for your very informed reply.