I use it because it's the right word for the right situation.
I won't lie, I'm not even sure what it means. From how I heard reporters using it, I would assume it applies to any condition of the economy from 2000-2012.

And if you'd read what I last put too, you'd realise I was taking the middle ground too.
That was what I was getting at. It's easy to agree with someone when they exercize a balance when discussing politics. However, I don't believe that anyone really is a moderate. When someone puts enough thought into deciding their opinion on politics, there are pros and cons to conservatism and liberalism, but I think the vast majority of people pick a side.
Some are closer or further from the line, but I've never met or talked to someone who truely stands on the line. Most people who claim they do are simply indecisive about their own opinion.
(not to make that a jab at you, I'm knowingly overgeneralzing)

As for being a sheep, what are you, the shepherd?
Not a shepherd,
Not sheltered.
I ment to imply that you are conditioned to a specific culture where anything unpopular is disreguarded, if not insulted, and it has influenced your own personal philosophy.
The quote,
if I quoted FOX in any intelligent argument/debate I'd be laughed out of the university.
Sounds like something a person would say if the were either arrogant, or subject to the personal belifs of their peers.
I'm not positive, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a university student has actually quoted FOX in a debate and probably was not laughed out.
However, if it has litterally happened before, it is not because FOX is an unreliable source overall. In fact, if it has happened, the true cause of ridicule would probably be the fact that the people overseeing the debate were sheep, conditioned to a specific culture where anything unpopular is disreguarded.

there's no need to patronise me by saying I'm not either.
I didn't mean you aren't either. I mean that Sasquach is probably a decent judge of character and you are probably not. My evidence being that you stated that he is blind to good character (or something along those lines) of certain (this last word was implied) politicains.


You've judged me without knowing me so leave it out yeah
I'll be the 'big' man
No, seems like I wasn't too far off.

He (Obama) is merely a figurehead.
You don't know the kind of power the president of the united states has.
The Queen of england is a figurehead.
An American President is actually given a lot of influence over the nation. A quick example off the top of my head is that he is Commander in Cheif of the military. He says "Jump", they get themselves in the air and stay there until he wants them back on the ground.
That is not a level of control you give to just some figurehead.

If anything the argument should be whether or not the success of failure of the Democratic first term could be assessed by the relevant successes/failures of the party or by your President.
This is a point that I argree should be discussed more. I just don't think many news organizations have thought of it.
Like I said, nobody talks about the democrats anymore. It's Obama and his crew. I know that wasn't the case with Bush and I'm trying to wring out some memory from my brain about Clinton, but I didn't really care about politics back then.
I think the case is that every action of the entire spectrum of liberals in the united states have Obama's face eclipsing their own.
Even Clinton suddenly found a reason to support Obama recently. I think it's probably because his wife wants to continue to be Secritary of State, but who knows?

Anyway,
Any liberal-minded people feel like that is the case?
That the word Democrat has been replaced with Obama?