What The Hell Is This ?

[Riverwind]

Moi, I see you are in a flux, wanting in the worst way to vote for a democrat, yet, you know you can't but you to know as a fact that you can't and wont vote for any republican, but you know you want to vote for someone, and oh shucks,

River

[moi621]

We are nearly communicating. Yea!
Moi's First Choice is a Democrat from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
Moi's Last Choice is a Democrat from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, aka Republican-lite.
Comprende?

You may believe a Democrat in name only, Republican-lite, is better then a Republican.
That is the source of our disagreement, I do believe.
I'd rather give one to the GOP in the hopes the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will dominate the party again producing Democratic wing Democratic Party candidates in the future.

I want a Progressive Tax Code, not one that favors the rich liberals.
I want an end to drone targeted assassinations as a common day occurrence.
I want appropriate trade laws that give American workers a level playing field, not Free Trade.
I want a stimulus based, public works based recovery and not the austerity, loans to failing friends one we have been sold.
I want the Bankers and Investment houses that helped create the economic collapse prosecuted for wrong doing. I do not accept there was none.
I want illegal aliens given a period of time to register toward legal residency while the borders are secured. It is wrong to maintain an underclass and we are not going to deport them en masse.
I want health care with a government option so it is not necessarily buying a private, for profit government mandated product.

I do not recognize the Democratic Party of Obama and Clinton as of the Democratic Party.
Some call them the most conservative Democratic Party presidents, I call them Republican-lite.

Yes, Yes. Give me Democrats from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and they will have my vote.

Moi

[Riverwind]

I would agree with you except for one thing, Obama and Clinton were Liberals, but when you are a true leader of such a large nation you can't just lead from the far left or right, something the democrats have learned the republicans have not yet, you must be the leader for all the people of the country and in doing so you must move to the center, its just the way it is. Hence as you call it republican-lite.

No matter what you do you must be a leader for all the people not just one side, the smart man knows this, Obama and Clinton understand this. I am sure if he had both houses of congress safely on his side you would see a much more liberal Obama, but he does not, so he is playing the cards he has been dealt.

River

[A-1]

River,

moi does make an interesting point.

Let us examine a 'one' of the things that Ronald Reagan did under moi's light.

Reagan set out to 'save' Social Security. He raised the taxes on businesses and individuals alike to support the 'bubble' of the coming 'baby boom' generation and then he oversaw the spending of the money earmarked for getting Social Security through the 'baby boom' bubble. He did this knowing full well that the nation could ill-afford it. He did this because he knew that down the road when it came time for the 'baby boomers' to collect Social Security that it would create financial chaos and create a stronger position for conservatives to attempt to DESTROY Social Security.

HE did many *other things* such as this. One was running swearing to *balance the budget* and then instead INCREASING the debt exponentially. WHY DID HE DO THIS?

Do you see the evil in campaigning as one thing and behaving as another thing? I do. The question is do we reward this? Apparently we do. He got two terms.

moi is so frustrated that he advocates putting the worst of these kind of candidates in office, thus creating chaos such as America has never seen. But is this advocating national suicide to make a point?

Please respond to this question, moi. Make us understand your position, if my evaluation is correct. Otherwise, tell me why it is not.

I believe that the problem as moi presents it boils down to a two-party system. How do we solve it?

[Riverwind]

River,

moi does make an interesting point.

Let us examine a 'one' of the things that Ronald Reagan did under moi's light.

Reagan set out to 'save' Social Security. He raised the taxes on businesses and individuals alike to support the 'bubble' of the coming 'baby boom' generation and then he oversaw the spending of the money earmarked for getting Social Security through the 'baby boom' bubble. He did this knowing full well that the nation could ill-afford it. He did this because he knew that down the road when it came time for the 'baby boomers' to collect Social Security that it would create financial chaos and create a stronger position for conservatives to attempt to DESTROY Social Security.

HE did many *other things* such as this. One was running swearing to *balance the budget* and then instead INCREASING the debt exponentially. WHY DID HE DO THIS?

Do you see the evil in campaigning as one thing and behaving as another thing? I do. The question is do we reward this? Apparently we do. He got two terms.

moi is so frustrated that he advocates putting the worst of these kind of candidates in office, thus creating chaos such as America has never seen. But is this advocating national suicide to make a point?

Please respond to this question, moi. Make us understand your position, if my evaluation is correct. Otherwise, tell me why it is not.

I believe that the problem as moi presents it boils down to a two-party system. How do we solve it?

Kill rich people.

River

[Riverwind]

I should have read the other post first, my last post was pure sarcasm. I would never advocate the killing of another, hurt, beat, torture, sure but kill, thats going to far.

[A-1]

I should have read the other post first, my last post was pure sarcasm. I would never advocate the killing of another, hurt, beat, torture, sure but kill, that's going to far.

It is.

Will somebody please tell the 'other side', then? Sarcasm works BOTH WAYS... River, one can make ANY statement no matter how horrific and then justify it by a claim of being sarcastic, apologizing and claiming that the rest of us were too dumb to see it.

Personally, I don't feel that YOU owe anybody anything. You, my friend, WERE JUSTIFIED!

moi, why so quiet...? Cat got your tongue, or has the insincerity and half-truths that you tell got it in a BIG CHOKING KNOT, again?

Why did Reagan do what he did? He did it so that he could "set up" the battle that now rages today regarding budgetary concerns. He really DID NOT GIVE A TINKER'S DAMN about people, all he wanted was HIS WAY, like any other SPOILED ROTTEN MOVIE STAR who professes to be a Conservative!

DUBYA just followed that example, except he was so DUMB that his nefarious plan BLEW UP IN HIS FACE and he had to sign off on a 700 BILLION bail out for the RICH before they lost their collective asses ALL OVER THE WORLD. In other words, George W. Bush was a stupid, ignorant son-of-a-BITCH and H.W. is the BITCH of whom I speak...

What's the matter, moi?

Since you have NO explanations to offer I can only state that YOU are attempting another one of YOUR grand MANIPULATIONS, once again. ...and YOU got BUSTED, ONCE AGAIN!

Your insincerity is OVERWHELMING. moi... You will never change, will you? (Yep! What else could we expect from the 'little one" on the RIGHT...?)

C'mon, defend your position, moi. Why would YOU, a Libertarian, (or Conservative?) support DEMOCRATS unless you have concocted a GREATER EVIL scheme for a future date?

I contend that is EXACTLY what you are up to. Now. Prove me wrong, if you can.

...but all that you can do now is complain to administrators about being "OUTED" in the Political Message boards..., isn't it?