Jackson50 said:
Sqrl said:
Jackson50 said:
^ Obama smokes (or he did until recently) so I imagine that would be a risk factor.
^^I know TNR has an ideological bent, but even if they are partial to the left they can point out why that particular ranking scale is not accurate. I know Obama is a liberal. I believe he has asserted as much. I simply find it asinine when conservatives say Obama was THE most liberal senator. It simply is not true. You may say he is an ardent liberal, but he is not THE most liberal.
|
Gee thanks for the permission. The point is that we have two reports and your word that one is more thorough than the other. We can debate what conclusion to draw from this all-day long but the difference in result isn't worth the hubub you're putting up to make the point.
Arguing over whether he is "the most liberal" or "almost the most liberal" is just pointless. They mean practically the same thing. It's the difference between 0.999..... and 1.
|
You are welcome for the permission. I disagree about it not being worth the hubub. The point is, is that there is a difference between being "the most liberal" and "a strong liberal." There are members of the senate who are stronger liberals than Barack Obama. If it will make you feel better, let us throw out the conflicting reports. Still, any intelligent person can surmise that Obama is not the most liberal senator.
|
@Bold,
This type of comment is born out of a mild bigotry, and frankly has no place in a serious discussion. Please make your points without throwing jabs and without relying on your own suppositions that dismiss others as unintelligent by virtue of their disagreement. Nobody needs someone implying they're stupid simply because of a disagreement on what amounts to a non-issue. This may seem like a strong response but bigotry has become disturbingly common in political threads lately and I'm getting pretty tired of it. You might say I'm a bigoted against bigotry.
Now, getting back to the issue at hand...The only thing we can surmise with any real certainty is that he is very liberal. Whether he is absolutely the most liberal or not depends largely on your definition of liberal and your methods for determining it, I think we can agree on that, no?
Since these different methodologies for making a determination produce conflicting results the issue naturally lends itself to these sorts of never ending arguments where both sides cite valid examples of different methodologies that are in disagreement. Since neither of us will agree with the opinion of the other the best we can do is agree that his positions lie somewhere between "most liberal" and "very liberal" (inclusive).
Now, with that said I'll let my position speak for itself. If you feel it necessary to keep debating the point then feel free but please don't pretend that your position is unassailable, it is far from it.
