I know Dem Obama supporters hate to hear this, but....

Damocles said:
I think it may be more difficult than you think. And I think that I am likely to vote for somebody that I think is "slightly better" than whomever the Ds nominate.

I feel no need to lie about my political affiliation. Sometimes Darla forgets because she wants to believe, for some inexplicable reason, that I am not what I have stated to her several times. A Republican who leans libertarian.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with your political affiliation or a principled vote .. and I think it will be much harder than YOU think my brother .. and for very good reason.

In fact, America and the planet rejoices because you'll be on the bench sitting this one out .. not an attack on you personally, but a sigh of relief and a breath of fresh air away .. far away .. from your political affilation and who you think "principled."
 
Damocles said:
I like Tom, he is a friend. But Bill Winter was plain stupid, and there was no Libertarian candidate to vote for.
Click to expand...

If you voted for crazy Tom Tancredo over bill winter (and let's not pretend you ever even contemplated ever voting for winter, or any dem, over tancredo), it suggests to me that you'd vote for Romney and maybe even Huckabee over Obama.

Just admit it. :)

:pke:
 
Cypress said:
If you voted for crazy Tom Tancredo over bill winter (and let's not pretend you ever even contemplated ever voting for winter, or any dem, over tancredo), it suggests to me that you'd vote for Romney and maybe even Huckabee over Obama.

Just admit it. :)

:pke:
Click to expand...
Tom is far more than his immigration stance (which is too strong). But over all, if I weighed who I agreed with more between those two I would go with Tom. Bill was a moron. Even his own party left him less than halfway through the election year. It was sad to watch. He had no money, no support and yard signs in about two lawns. Lots of them, but only two lawns.

I remember you telling me how he was going to give Tom a run for his money... Tom spent some money on nice commercials talking up the troops, he didn't even have to campaign.
 
Damocles said:
Tom is far more than his immigration stance (which is too strong). But over all, if I weighed who I agreed with more between those two I would go with Tom. Bill was a moron. Even his own party left him less than halfway through the election year. It was sad to watch. He had no money, no support and yard signs in about two lawns. Lots of them, but only two lawns.

I remember you telling me how he was going to give Tom a run for his money... Tom spent some money on nice commercials talking up the troops, he didn't even have to campaign.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I was totally faced. I thought Winter had a shot, but what the hell do I know? :)
 
See, this is what I'm talking about. Not only does Obama routinely use reich wing talking points, he talks up Ronald Reagan. In the broader view, Reagan was a disaster for this country, IMO. Deregulation, union busting, and unfettered free trade hit the middle class in the gut. What's a democrat doing, cheerleading Reagan?


Obama Talks Up Reagan

No, Ronald Reagan didn't appeal to people's optimism, he appealed to their petty, small minded bigotry and selfishness. Jimmy Carter told people to tighten their energy belts and act for the good of the country; Ronald Reagan told them they could guzzle gas with impunity and do whatever the hell they wanted. He kicked off his 1980 campaign talking about "state's rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964's Freedom Summer. He thus put up a welcome sign for "Reagan Democrats," peeling off white voters who were unhappy with the multi-ethnic coalition within the Democratic Party.

One of his first acts was to fire 11,000 air traffic controllers in 1981 -- one of the most devastating union busting moves of the past century. And his vision of deregulation didn't free the country up for entrepreneurship, it opened it up for the wholesale thievery of the savings & loan crisis. He popularized the notion that all government is bad government and in eight short years put in place the architecture for decades of GOP graft and corruption.

There's enough hagiography of Reagan on the right, I don't think Democrats really need to go there.

firedoglake.com
 
well for 1 he's infinately smarter than you on the economy.
The economy is better in total and for the average person post Reagan. But yes a few of your labor buddies formally making 100,000 for snapping parts toghether did get hurt.
 
This isn't about Carter. Carter was a poor politician, and a flawed leader. But, he did no lasting harm to america, and had several important accomplishments.

Reaganomics has had long term and lasting detrimental affects on working americans. His legacy of union-busting, excessive deregulation, creation of historic and massive debt, racism, environmental neglect, support for rightwing dictators and islamic jihaddists are haunting us to this day. How any Democrat can pay honor to his administration's legacy is beyond me.
 
yes again, 5% hurt bad including the air traffic controllers.
The other 95% enjoyed and economic boom hard for you to match, maybe you didn't participate:clink:
 
Carter and Reagan both get largely undeserved bad raps. Pound for pound though, Reagan was a far more serious violator of individual rights and transparency in government than Carter was. Both of them achieved admirable deregulation of certain industries, for which Reagan got most of the credit and Carter did most of the work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top