Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 224







Post#5576 at 01-09-2012 09:19 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-09-2012, 09:19 PM #5576
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
This is an interesting perspective, and it gets to the heart of (imho) the political disagreements here.

I think the difference between myself and the dems on the board (guessing) is that while I agree that we have a country massively tilted toward the wealthy, where being born poor is in some ways a caste prescription, I don't blame the pubs, and I don't necessarily see the dems as the party for the poor.
'pub policies made the difference between 30 years ago and today. We have become far more unequal and unmobile. Trickle-down economics favors the wealthy class big-time.
They're both the party of the elite. Period. And everytime we set up something that resembles a "safety net" here in the US, it eventually turns into a safety net for that same elite.
How do you figure that? Social Security, medicaid and welfare payments go to the people who need them.
consumer protection turns into big ag. "common defense" becomes the biggest effin welfare program we have, the war on drugs becomes something like the second. modern keynesianists become billionaire handouts to the people who caused this problem. sending working class kids to school turns into the non-bankruptable chains of debt serfdom in the next bubble.
You jump to many conclusions. Consumer protection has no connection whatever to "big ag." It works and keeps us safe. What doesn't work is to remove the regulations in the name of helping business to create jobs. Keynesian policies work when done right, though they aren't by any means the whole answer; there are also important structural problems put in place by Republicans and DINOs. Educating children has no connection to debt serfdom, unless you do it the Republican way (make students pay for huge loans).
I simply don't see how folks (some of whom I respect) can have faith in either of these parties.
The point is not to have faith in them. As I see it, the point is to ditch the Republicans as hopeless, and bend or takeover the Democrats, and pressure them either through primaries or through support of third parties/independents.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5577 at 01-10-2012 12:47 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-10-2012, 12:47 AM #5577
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
This is an interesting perspective, and it gets to the heart of (imho) the political disagreements here.

I think the difference between myself and the dems on the board (guessing) is that while I agree that we have a country massively tilted toward the wealthy, where being born poor is in some ways a caste prescription, I don't blame the pubs, and I don't necessarily see the dems as the party for the poor.
Polarized as the 2008 American Presidential election was, it had perhaps the lowest correlation between income and selection of the President in American history. Maybe it is because the Republican Party was able to convince poor white people that the Republicans best serve poor white people, especially in the South. People who used to vote for Carter (at least in 1976) and Bill Clinton twice might no longer do so. Higher education used to favor Republicans, but it doesn't now.

Poverty is not a matter of caste. But we seem headed to a social order in which powerlessness implies poverty -- a very bad situation in which demagogues flourish.

They're both the party of the elite. Period. And every time we set up something that resembles a "safety net" here in the US, it eventually turns into a safety net for that same elite.
Does anyone question that big government spending often goes through contractors? Does anyone question that well-paid medical staff ultimately get the payments for Medicaid and Medicare? Does anyone have a problem that welfare benefits often go through Wal*Mart, Dollar General, Safeway, and the like? That housing benefits go through for-profit landlords? A conservative can likely recognize that it is far better that well-paid professionals and rapacious corporations get the proceeds of relief payments or job-creating contractors than that people either starve, riot, or revolt? It's not so clearly corporate or professional welfare when a genuine benefit is performed.

consumer protection turns into big ag. "common defense" becomes the biggest effin welfare program we have, the war on drugs becomes something like the second. modern keynesianists become billionaire handouts to the people who caused this problem. sending working class kids to school turns into the non-bankruptable chains of debt serfdom in the next bubble.
The Food Stamp program was so designed that people could only buy American-made food products. (That has its faults -- such things as toothpaste, soap, and toilet paper aren't included, and such questionable objects as candy, chips, and diet soda are permitted. I'd prefer also that people on welfare do some of their own cooking instead of relying upon processed foods -- let the poor make their own lasagna instead of getting it from a container).

If there is any budget-constraining measure to be added to the Constitution, then make war far more difficult to start. I look at the two most pointless wars in American History -- the wars in Vietnam and Iraq -- and those were protracted budget-busters with no obvious benefit. We should not wage wars except (1) after an invasion or attack on the US -- the war in Afghanistan would be excused; (2) when the US formally declares war (last time WWII); (3) in accordance with a formal treaty (NATO -- defense of Kosovo, Rio Treaty after the Commie takeover of Grenada) or on behalf of an international authority (the United Nations -- Korea, first Gulf War); (4) in response to an immediate threat to American citizens or a declaration of war by another country (Panama -- Manuel Noriega actually declared war on the US). Short wars that have international support and limited objectives are not problems. Declared wars and those on behalf of treaties are eminently avoidable by the other side.

Keynes suggests that taxes be raised in good times to sop up excessive demand... and graduated, progressive taxes do the trick. Think of how much smaller the Dubya-era deficits would have been had America not had the war in Iraq and had the profiteering income from real estate speculation and predatory lending been taxed highly.

Sending the poor to school is a good investment if the kids have the talent. It's good for promoting social mobility. Even if the schooling is vocational it can make the difference between skilled work and poverty. The fault is that college has become fiendishly expensive and that the financial hustlers have taken over the financing.

We have an ugly ethos in which the objective of contemporary American economics is the enrichment of the "right people".

I simply don't see how folks (some of whom I respect) can have faith in either of these parties.
For the entrenched elites and perhaps for the superstitious on the Right, the partisan choice is one between good and damnable evil. For liberals (including some professionals like teachers) the difference is between a flawed Party and one that offers nothing.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#5578 at 01-10-2012 09:13 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
01-10-2012, 09:13 AM #5578
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
This is an interesting perspective, and it gets to the heart of (imho) the political disagreements here.

I think the difference between myself and the dems on the board (guessing) is that while I agree that we have a country massively tilted toward the wealthy, where being born poor is in some ways a caste prescription, I don't blame the pubs, and I don't necessarily see the dems as the party for the poor.

They're both the party of the elite. Period. And everytime we set up something that resembles a "safety net" here in the US, it eventually turns into a safety net for that same elite.

consumer protection turns into big ag. "common defense" becomes the biggest effin welfare program we have, the war on drugs becomes something like the second. modern keynesianists become billionaire handouts to the people who caused this problem. sending working class kids to school turns into the non-bankruptable chains of debt serfdom in the next bubble.

I simply don't see how folks (some of whom I respect) can have faith in either of these parties.
I certainly am not in total disagreement but I see a more complicated picture. And I don't understand several of your specific points.

The Democrats have certainly collaborated in creating the political/economic system we have now, ever since the 1990s at least, and Obama and co. have shown very little desire actually to transform it. But they at least want to keep things roughly where they are, with Social Security, Medicare, and a mildly progressive taxation system, while the Republicans are determined to make them much worse and will surely do so if tehy get the chance. Meanwhile, the Democrats honestly believe in progressive stances on social issues while the Republicans would rather create a theocracy, a complete novelty in American history. I think the parties will clearly have a different impact, even though neither will have the kind of impact I would like to see.

Unless you equate imprisoning people with welfare, I don't see how you can call the war on drugs a welfare program. I agree that it is horribly wasteful, destructive, and bipartisan, but it ain't welfare.

I am in the middle of Ron Suskind's new book, Confidence Men, about economic policy in the Obama Administration. It terrified the Administration which went on a campaign to kill its reception, which appears to have been quite successful. It shows that Obama picked an establishment economic team and did more or less whatever they wanted--and that he can't manage the big egos around him. Very sad.







Post#5579 at 01-10-2012 09:17 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
01-10-2012, 09:17 AM #5579
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

If Newt Gingrich didn't exist, late night comics would have to invent him. This is what he said yesterday:

"“Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money?”"

Yes, Newt, and the Pope is Catholic.

Meanwhile, Romney is now poised to wrap up the Republican nomination in short order--he will win hugely today and he is well ahead in both South Carolina and Florida. I do wonder what the Tea Party folk will do then. . .







Post#5580 at 01-10-2012 09:29 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-10-2012, 09:29 AM #5580
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

In today's NY Times, David Brooks takes-up for liberals. Why does it have to fall to a moderate conservative like Brooks?
Where Are the Liberals?

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: January 9, 2012
Why aren’t there more liberals in America?

It’s not because liberalism lacks cultural power. Many polls suggest that a majority of college professors and national journalists vote Democratic. The movie, TV, music and publishing industries are dominated by liberals.

It’s not because recent events have disproved the liberal worldview. On the contrary, we’re still recovering from a financial crisis caused, in large measure, by Wall Street excess. Corporate profits are zooming while worker salaries are flat.

It’s not because liberalism’s opponents are going from strength to strength. The Republican Party is unpopular and sometimes embarrassing.

Given the circumstances, this should be a golden age of liberalism. Yet the percentage of Americans who call themselves liberals is either flat or in decline. There are now two conservatives in this country for every liberal. Over the past 40 years, liberalism has been astonishingly incapable at expanding its market share.
More at link.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#5581 at 01-10-2012 02:57 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-10-2012, 02:57 PM #5581
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
If Newt Gingrich didn't exist, late night comics would have to invent him. This is what he said yesterday:

"“Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money?”"

Yes, Newt, and the Pope is Catholic.
And your historically proven alternative to capitalism is ....??

You can say all you want about Newt Gingrich, but calling him a joke is itself a joke.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5582 at 01-10-2012 03:38 PM by Felix5 [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 2,793]
---
01-10-2012, 03:38 PM #5582
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
2,793

Newt Gingrich is a HUGE joke, are you kidding me?? The guy who was solely responsible for the near shut down of the federal government due to disagreements over the budget, is going to somehow be able to balance a budget?

I don't fucking think so. Get this joke out of the presidential election.

Our federal government is a huge joke in general, but Newt Gingrich is the butt of this joke for sure.







Post#5583 at 01-10-2012 03:42 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-10-2012, 03:42 PM #5583
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Felix5 View Post
The guy who was solely responsible for the near shut down of the federal government
You need to study up on the Constitution. No one can be "solely responsible" for the shutdown. This is such typical left wing clap trap. Call someone you don't agree with a "joke" and that proves what a good little liberal you are without having to actually say anything of substance. The guy in NH with a boot on his head - that is a joke. I could never vote for Gingrich but he is a serious person who should be taken seriously.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5584 at 01-10-2012 04:12 PM by Felix5 [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 2,793]
---
01-10-2012, 04:12 PM #5584
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
2,793

You need to study up on the Constitution. No one can be "solely responsible" for the shutdown. This is such typical left wing clap trap. Call someone you don't agree with a "joke" and that proves what a good little liberal you are without having to actually say anything of substance. The guy in NH with a boot on his head - that is a joke. I could never vote for Gingrich but he is a serious person who should be taken seriously.

He's a serious person who should be taken seriously? Wow you should write poetry.

I'm just going to let your lunatic ramblings speak for themselves, I mean talk about a political agenda. Have I ever even mentioned my political viewpoints once on this board? (regarding the whole red v blue war) Why would you just assume that I'm a left winger, or even a democrat?

No. If I have then show me quotations implying that I am a "Left winger."

I have no political viewpoints. I see this nonsense as absolutely in the moment "clap trap" that means nothing overall. The only political view I have is that of Generation Theory.

Thinking that Newt Gingrich is an ideological nut bag with destructive tendencies has nothing to do with my opinions on gay marriage or abortion. It has to do with the fact that he has proven this to be true, in the mid 90s, when he led a movement that nearly shut down the federal government for ideological reasons.
Last edited by Felix5; 01-10-2012 at 04:25 PM.







Post#5585 at 01-10-2012 04:23 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-10-2012, 04:23 PM #5585
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
...Something is wrong when the tax rate on a family business that turns $100K a year is the same as it is on a monolith that churns out $100 billion a year.
If huge firms such as GE acutally paid the same rate as small firms , I would be pleased. There are too many loopholes that allow the largest firms to pay very little. This should be fixed.







Post#5586 at 01-10-2012 04:42 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-10-2012, 04:42 PM #5586
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Felix5 View Post
He's a serious person who should be taken seriously? Wow you should write poetry.

I'm just going to let your lunatic ramblings speak for themselves, I mean talk about a political agenda. Have I ever even mentioned my political viewpoints once on this board? (regarding the whole red v blue war) Why would you just assume that I'm a left winger, or even a democrat?

No. If I have then show me quotations implying that I am a "Left winger."

I have no political viewpoints. I see this nonsense as absolutely in the moment "clap trap" that means nothing overall. The only political view I have is that of Generation Theory.

Thinking that Newt Gingrich is an ideological nut bag with destructive tendencies has nothing to do with my opinions on gay marriage or abortion. It has to do with the fact that he has proven this to be true, in the mid 90s, when he led a movement that nearly shut down the federal government for ideological reasons.
OK, glad to hear you have an open mind. Let's check it out. How many of the current Republican candidates do you consider a joke:

1. Romney
2. Santorum
3. Paul
4. Gingrich
5. Perry
6. Huntsman

Now how many of these 2008 Democratic candidates do you consider a joke:

1. Obama
2. Biden
3. Dodd
4. Clinton
5. Edwards
6. Gravel
7. Kucinich
8. Richardson

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5587 at 01-10-2012 05:19 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-10-2012, 05:19 PM #5587
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
OK, glad to hear you have an open mind. Let's check it out. How many of the current Republican candidates do you consider a joke:

1. Romney
2. Santorum
3. Paul
4. Gingrich
5. Perry
6. Huntsman
I find both Perry and Santorum too lightweight to even consider. I think that Gingrich and Paul would be diasters in the job, but are qualified. Huntsman is far and away the best of the bunch.

Quote Originally Posted by James50 ...
Now how many of these 2008 Democratic candidates do you consider a joke:

1. Obama
2. Biden
3. Dodd
4. Clinton
5. Edwards
6. Gravel
7. Kucinich
8. Richardson
I couldn't support Kucinich because I doubt he would be able to govern. Edwards is a scumbag. I could live the rest, though I prefer Dodd where he is today. Although Biden has foot-in-mouth disease, I would support him in the job. He has the values many of the others just talk about.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#5588 at 01-10-2012 05:47 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-10-2012, 05:47 PM #5588
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
I find both Perry and Santorum too lightweight to even consider. I think that Gingrich and Paul would be diasters in the job, but are qualified. Huntsman is far and away the best of the bunch.


I couldn't support Kucinich because I doubt he would be able to govern. Edwards is a scumbag. I could live the rest, though I prefer Dodd where he is today. Although Biden has foot-in-mouth disease, I would support him in the job. He has the values many of the others just talk about.
A reasonable response and not too far from me although I have a higher opinion of Santorum than you do, and I put Gravel in the Kucinich camp. But hey, don't butt in. Its felix that needs to show hir colors.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5589 at 01-10-2012 05:50 PM by Felix5 [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 2,793]
---
01-10-2012, 05:50 PM #5589
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
2,793

OK, glad to hear you have an open mind. Let's check it out. How many of the current Republican candidates do you consider a joke:

1. Romney
2. Santorum
3. Paul
4. Gingrich
5. Perry
6. Huntsman

Now how many of these 2008 Democratic candidates do you consider a joke:

1. Obama
2. Biden
3. Dodd
4. Clinton
5. Edwards
6. Gravel
7. Kucinich
8. Richardson
That would be all of the above, there are no "great" candidates, let alone candidates that aren't a complete and utter joke. Like I said, our entire federal government is a huge joke. I actually think a 5 year old girl could do a better job at issuing justice and legislation than anyone on this list. They'd certainly act less irrational.

But hey, don't butt in. Its felix that needs to show hir colors.
I don't know what you're getting at.
Last edited by Felix5; 01-10-2012 at 05:54 PM.







Post#5590 at 01-10-2012 06:01 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-10-2012, 06:01 PM #5590
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Crazy is as crazy does. Looks like big changes in the Obama administration. NOT! But it's Kucinich and Gravel who are the crazy ones. Right?

Different day, same ole lobbyist.

The New White House Chief of Staff

When President Obama last January announced the departure of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff, many liberals were furious that his replacement was the Midwest Chairman of JP Morgan and Boeing Director William Daley, who was also an opponent of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a critic of Obama’s health care bill as too leftist. As but one example, Rachel Maddow harshly condemned the choice, noting Daley was a hedge fund manager and “business lobbyist” and “is known for pushing Democrats toward business interests”; said “liberals are banging their heads against the wall as they try to comprehend this choice”; and then sardonically observed: “mmm – a banker and a lobbyist: smells like change.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_...and_citigroup/
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5591 at 01-10-2012 06:09 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-10-2012, 06:09 PM #5591
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Felix5 View Post
I don't know what you're getting at.
Just trying to figure out your joke threshold. It sounds like it doesn't take much for someone to be a joke. Fair enough. Now I know how seriously to take your designations of the jokers in the future.

All politicians are a joke is not very discriminating.

James50
Last edited by James50; 01-10-2012 at 06:14 PM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5592 at 01-10-2012 06:16 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-10-2012, 06:16 PM #5592
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
But it's Kucinich and Gravel who are the crazy ones.
I don't think they are crazy, but agree with M&L that neither could govern.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5593 at 01-10-2012 06:38 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-10-2012, 06:38 PM #5593
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
I don't think they are crazy, but agree with M&L that neither could govern.

James50
Yeah, I guess that's the problem with politicians that walk their talk. Unlike some others we all know and regret voting for in 2008.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5594 at 01-10-2012 06:40 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-10-2012, 06:40 PM #5594
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Crazy is as crazy does. Looks like big changes in the Obama administration. NOT! But it's Kucinich and Gravel who are the crazy ones. Right?

Different day, same ole lobbyist.

The New White House Chief of Staff



http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_...and_citigroup/
And this, dear friends, is Obama governing.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5595 at 01-10-2012 06:42 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-10-2012, 06:42 PM #5595
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Tumultuous Times for Democracy Compelled Moyers' Return to TV

On the role of the presidency and presidential candidates. Nobody forced Obama to make the economic advisors he appointed to important posts, says Moyers. He made those choices himself, he argues, and those choices have consequences that we are all forced to live with.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/10-1
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5596 at 01-10-2012 06:46 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
01-10-2012, 06:46 PM #5596
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Yeah, I guess that's the problem with politicians that walk their talk. Unlike some others we all know and regret voting for in 2008.
Do you really regret voting for Obama in 2008? Given the alternative (for a progressive)?

He's been a disappointment, but still...
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#5597 at 01-10-2012 06:51 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-10-2012, 06:51 PM #5597
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Do you really regret voting for Obama in 2008? Given the alternative (for a progressive)?

He's been a disappointment, but still...
It's a regret that I will most likely repeat, considering the Looney Toons alternative. I sound like an abused spouse don't I?
Last edited by Deb C; 01-10-2012 at 07:03 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5598 at 01-10-2012 07:28 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-10-2012, 07:28 PM #5598
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
He certainly does seem to have some of you guys by the cajones.
That would be ovaries in my case, thank you.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5599 at 01-10-2012 08:57 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
01-10-2012, 08:57 PM #5599
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Felix5 View Post
Newt Gingrich is a HUGE joke, are you kidding me?? The guy who was solely responsible for the near shut down of the federal government due to disagreements over the budget, is going to somehow be able to balance a budget?

I don't fucking think so. Get this joke out of the presidential election.

Our federal government is a huge joke in general, but Newt Gingrich is the butt of this joke for sure.
He's a bad flashback to the 90s.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#5600 at 01-10-2012 09:01 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
01-10-2012, 09:01 PM #5600
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
A reasonable response and not too far from me although I have a higher opinion of Santorum than you do, and I put Gravel in the Kucinich camp. But hey, don't butt in. Its felix that needs to show hir colors.

James50
How can a same, reasonable person like you have a positive opinion of a fanatical sex-obsessed bigot?

The only sane ones in the whole GOP bunch are Romney and Huntsman, and Huntman is the only one who is a decent human being.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
-----------------------------------------