Republican Worship of Greed and Democratic inevitablity

[Old_Liberal]

How many of those Democrats are voting for Obama because they don't want to admit they should have nominated Hillary Clinton back in 2008? Sometimes it's tough to admit that you were wrong...isn't it?

Of course it is, and we see it on both sides.

That's fuckin' BULLSHIT.....and, you can PACK that politically-correct "both sides" horseshit, as well!!!!

I was a HUGE Hillary-supporter, 'cause I figured it'd take Bill to clean-up our economy, after another Bush....again.

Was I disappointed she didn't get the nomination? Sure.

Did I recognize Obama got the most media-attention....and, the most support, from younger-people....'cause he was The Story, during the Primaries? Absolutely. Hell, I'd bet (even) he'd admit that.

I can't explain why it took Andrew Sullivan so long to "come, around", but he's exactly RIGHT!!! Obama has spent (the past) four-years setting-up the NeoCons for the final KILL-SHOT (in the up-coming Election)....and, he did-so, really-WELL!!!! Even Republicans recognize his policies/legislation won't start paying-off, until his second four-years....and, they're scared, SHITLESS, over that.....'cause they saw Bill Clinton do the same, exact thing!!!!

The idea that "Democrats are voting for Obama because they don't want to admit they should have nominated Hillary Clinton back in 2008" is absurd.

I've got NO PROBLEM seeing Obama re-elected! He's done exactly what he'd promised, but had to tailor his tactics per "conservatives'" obstructionst-tactics. Those (on The Left) who are disappointed at his performance are no-more sophisticated than your average-Teabagger; political-neophytes.

Besides.....Bill & Hill will be back in the Whitehouse, in 2016, anyhow. It's BEEN a Win-Win scenario, for Dems, since 2008. Any Dem who hasn't recognized that is (obviously, to me) a rookie, to politics....and, needs to settle-down, put-away their pom-poms & start pay-attention, for a Change.

Right HERE, NeoCons!!!!!!

nah, bill and hill do not want the oval office. They know it will be impossible to fix an economic model that bill had a large hand in creating, and how could he ever say mea culpa for what free trade has done to our middle class?

We need the pubs to win in 12, so they can finish off the middle class, which will then relegate the pubs to the dustbin of history. Which will happen anyway, later on once the demographics relegate white voters to the minority. The end of the republican party is inevitable, and it scares the shit out of the astute folks that see it coming.

It will be the final irony when the repub deregs of banking and their concoction of free trade agreements that resulted in the deindustrialization of america, will force this nation into something closer to socialism. Yep, it will be the final great irony of the shortsighted pubs who don't have enough common sense to not head for the lone tree in a field during a lightning storm.

The only thing that can save the pubs is if they concentrate on expanding the middle, instead of creating policy that sends more and more wealth upwards to the only people they are representing today. But this cannot happen with the mindset these jackwags have. So, goodbye pubs. And good riddance.

 

[kaz]

We always hear about the redistrubution of wealth from the right but FACTS clearly show that there has been a redistribution of wealth upwards for decades

Actually facts don't clearly show that. There are many, many contradictory facts. But that's irrelevant to the point. The point was "greed."

What I want is freedom. You're saying here's a stat, you don't like it, you want government to control the money supply to fix it. I want people to have what they earn, you want government to control it. Greed...worship...of money. You want to control it. Mine, yours, everyone else's money will be what you approve of. All of it. That's greed. You like to make it sound like you're above money, you're consumed with it. That is the clear fact.

 

[del]

I said the same exact thing in another thread. Romney of 2012 is Kerry of 2004. Kerry was the "establishment" candidate that most didn't really like all that much...the base actually preferred Dean. Dems weren't voting FOR Kerry, but against Bush.

Most Rs aren't voting FOR Romney, but against Obama whereas most Ds are voting FOR Obama. It makes a difference.

How many of those Democrats are voting for Obama because they don't want to admit they should have nominated Hillary Clinton back in 2008? Sometimes it's tough to admit that you were wrong...isn't it?

Ah...mindless speculation, my favorite.

The nomination was Hillary's to lose and she did. No buyers remorse here, thanks.

i can see why you'd enjoy it so much; you're very well equipped

 

[Dot Com]

 

[mudwhistle]

Mitt Romney represents everything that is kind of wrong with the GOP today. It's the kind of self defeating mentality of a coyote who chews off three legs and is still caught in the trap.

Let's talk about what makes the GOP admirable. It is a party of limited government, self-reliance and freedom to persue happiness. Absolutely good traits.

But the firewall against creeping European Socialism is a strong middle class with skin in the game. One that can have pride in bringing home a paycheck.

A middle class, unfortunately, the Mitt Romneys of the world have been doing their very best to dismantle. Get rid of that good paying union job at AmPad, move that good paying job at DDi to China, make bigger profits for your investors. We'll replace them with McJobs at Staples and Dominos Pizza that pay minimum wage and have no benefits.

When you take away the ability of working people to make good money, when they require food stamps and school lunches to feed their kids, when they need section 8 vouchers to put a roof over their head, when they need a Earned Income Credit to make up for the money they aren't earning at their jobs at Staples, when they have to apply for Medicaid to see a doctor, or rely on Social Security because they sharks on Wall Street made a killing manipulating the market while they were locked into crashing 401K's.

When you do these things, you create more dependence on Government. You make it more palatable for people, and they are more inclined to vote for Democrats. Oh, you can fool some of them by creating upset about guns or gays or abortion or affirmative action, for a while, but eventually they figure it out.

If our politics today has become a choice between big business and big government, you don't want to make big government more attractive. But they are doing exactly that.

Making products affordable is what makes living in this country affordable.

Unfortunately we have some butt-reaming shit-for-brains low-life in the White House trying desperately to drive up the cost of everything, beginning with energy.

Higher wages mean only one thing. Higher costs to the consumer. And we are all consumers. Once you stop being a heavy consumer you become more independent. Course you have to cut back on everything to do that. But all that will cause is job losses. Seems like the Dems want ether more dependancy, less consumption, or fewer people.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe is doing his level best to reelect Barack Obama because of his paranoid hatred of all things Mormon. Reminds me of the people who wouldn't vote for Kennedy because they didn't want a Papist in the White House.

As an ex-catholic, I find that sort of offensive.

Nobody seriously thought JFK was going to take orders from John XXIII.

Few people think that Romney is going to say, "I'm not home" when Monson calls him.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyway, this election is beginning to smell like a reverse of 2004, when the GOP had a terribly flawed incumbent and the Democrats respond with John freakin' Kerry. Talk about a blown opportunity.

Both "major" parties are a joke.

.

I said the same exact thing in another thread. Romney of 2012 is Kerry of 2004. Kerry was the "establishment" candidate that most didn't really like all that much...the base actually preferred Dean. Dems weren't voting FOR Kerry, but against Bush.

Most Rs aren't voting FOR Romney, but against Obama whereas most Ds are voting FOR Obama. It makes a difference.

How many of those Democrats are voting for Obama because they don't want to admit they should have nominated Hillary Clinton back in 2008? Sometimes it's tough to admit that you were wrong...isn't it?

Yes, it is, and I did a very thorough thread on that very subject a couple weeks ago...

Of course, there is a major difference.

There wasn't really a dime of policy difference between Hillary and Obama. It was just an argument of who would be a more dynamic opponent for whoever the GOP put up.

There is a huge gap between where the TEA Party is and where the Establishment is on issues.

 

[JoeB131]

Republican Worship of Greed

Democrats want their precious government to track, control and redistribute every dollar in our economy, and it's "Republicans" who are greedy....



What a moron, then again bigots are...

But the problem is, morons like you make it easier for them to sell their snake oil.

I am in the position I am in because my current and previous employer pretty much sought to cheat me at every oppurtunity to do so. So are a lot of other folks. Worker harder for less money.

You complain about the government being too intrusive, and I agree, it is. But when you are fighting for your life, you'll grab whatever club is available.

The problem with the GOP and their corporate masters is that they are tearing down the firewall. A well-paid middle class makind a good wage has no more interest in "redistribution" than the guy in his mansion. Who wants to work hard all day and give a slice of it to the guy sitting at home all day watching Jerry Springer?

But no one wants to work hard all day and see most of it go to a guy who just happened to pick your companies stock over the IPO for Facebook.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's talk about what makes the GOP admirable. It is a party of limited government, self-reliance and freedom to persue happiness. Absolutely good traits.

Yet you propose massive government intervention to solve what you see as the problem.

And you call yourself a Republican.

Go figure.

I propose doing whatever I have to do to survive. You can't be a venture Cannibal and not take the risk someone might decide to eat you.

I would much prefer that businesses act in the good of the whole without any government prompting. They don't do that now. In fact, quite the contrary, they make a mess and hope the rest of us clean it up. Run the whole economy into the wall? Well, everyone else will just have to pay into TARP, we still get our bonuses, no one goes to prison, and everyone else has to eat an underwater mortgage. SUCKERS!

And then you act surprised when people vote for more Government?

 

[JoeB131]

Making products affordable is what makes living in this country affordable.

Unfortunately we have some butt-reaming shit-for-brains low-life in the White House trying desperately to drive up the cost of everything, beginning with energy.

Higher wages mean only one thing. Higher costs to the consumer. And we are all consumers. Once you stop being a heavy consumer you become more independent. Course you have to cut back on everything to do that. But all that will cause is job losses. Seems like the Dems want ether more dependancy, less consumption, or fewer people.

We are 4% of the world's population and we use 25% of it's energy.

It isn't a matter of wages, it's a matter of divsion of the revunes. It's the idiot who really thinks it's dandy that Wagoneer gets a 12 million dollar salary (for wrecking the company), but begrudges the guy actually putting the car together $28.00 an hour.

Of course, signing awful trade treaties and letting corporations abuse consumers is a large part of the problem.

 

[Toro]

Let's talk about what makes the GOP admirable. It is a party of limited government, self-reliance and freedom to persue happiness. Absolutely good traits.

Yet you propose massive government intervention to solve what you see as the problem.

And you call yourself a Republican.

Go figure.

I propose doing whatever I have to do to survive.

IOW, limited government, self-reliance and freedom are all good things, until something makes you mad, then big government, government reliance and restricting your freedom are also good things.

Got it.

 

[JoeB131]

Yet you propose massive government intervention to solve what you see as the problem.

And you call yourself a Republican.

Go figure.

I propose doing whatever I have to do to survive.

IOW, limited government, self-reliance and freedom are all good things, until something makes you mad, then big government, government reliance and restricting your freedom are also good things.

Got it.

It's not about what "makes me mad", it's about what I have to do to survive.

I'm not going to die on principle. SOrry, just not going to do it. And neither are you.

Those things are nice, but they not if they are at the point where someone else's bad behavior is a threat to my well-being.

I would like to live in a world where I never have to lock my door. But if there are people out there intent on robbing me, I want a damned good lock.

 

[Toro]

I propose doing whatever I have to do to survive.

IOW, limited government, self-reliance and freedom are all good things, until something makes you mad, then big government, government reliance and restricting your freedom are also good things.

Got it.

It's not about what "makes me mad", it's about what I have to do to survive.

I'm not going to die on principle. SOrry, just not going to do it. And neither are you.

Those things are nice, but they not if they are at the point where someone else's bad behavior is a threat to my well-being.

I would like to live in a world where I never have to lock my door. But if there are people out there intent on robbing me, I want a damned good lock.

"Government, protect me from the evil capitalists! I'm a Republican!"

 

[JoeB131]

"Government, protect me from the evil capitalists! I'm a Republican!"

Hey, Ann Coulter was out defending RomneyCare today.... Government Mandates and everything.

I think we are well beyond "labels", don't you?

Just because you are driving the party over a cliff doesn't mean I have to come along for the ride.