On being liberal

And have not voted or the lesser of two evils for decades. And it was the government that passed the free trade agreements.

chickaree wrote: Voting for the " lesser of two evils ". Bulls**t.

There hasn't been a decent conservative candidate to vote for in ages. Until there is one, or until they put 'none of the above', I'll be forced to continue voting for the lesser of two evils.

I don't think it's the "lesser of evils" so much as "the best candidate from the choices I'm given at this time."

All of the candidates for President area Americans, so I wouldn't consider any of them an "evil" choice.

While the right wing fringe wails about how Obama is getting us into a "third war," I note that the former Republican presidential nominee actually went to Libya to support the insurgents. So, in that respect, I don't think voting for McCain over Obama would have changed our involvement one bit. Perhaps McCain might even have gotten more involved militarily, since he felt passionate enough about it to make a trip to Libya to show support for the insurgents.

Likewise, I don't think voting for McCain over Obama would have changed the bailouts. The only thing that would be different is no health care reform. But, if Romney is selected as the Republican nominee, he might also support it, given what he did as governor in his state.

kresspin wrote:

outdoor338 wrote: JFK, would hate the democratic party as it stands today, I'm sure when teddy went through the pearly gates, his brother john beat the crap out of him. Different time LH, you gotta agree to that! I would have voted for JFK over Clinton, and Obama, even over John M..jmtcw

Not only to you predict election outcomes years in advance, you read the minds of long dead people. I'm impressed.

Sorry kresspin, I would have responded sooner, but our family was evacuated due to the Myers ranch fire..

Mind reading? Please stop drinking your :Koolaid: must be a slow day for you, is your Jerry Springer show over? Carry on!

kresspin wrote: I don't think it's the "lesser of evils" so much as "the best candidate from the choices I'm given at this time."

All of the candidates for President area Americans, so I wouldn't consider any of them an "evil" choice.

While the right wing fringe wails about how Obama is getting us into a "third war," I note that the former Republican presidential nominee actually went to Libya to support the insurgents. So, in that respect, I don't think voting for McCain over Obama would have changed our involvement one bit. Perhaps McCain might even have gotten more involved militarily, since he felt passionate enough about it to make a trip to Libya to show support for the insurgents.

Likewise, I don't think voting for McCain over Obama would have changed the bailouts. The only thing that would be different is no health care reform. But, if Romney is selected as the Republican nominee, he might also support it, given what he did as governor in his state.

I doubt if Romney would support the healthcare law as it stands. He has made statements to the effect that healthcare laws can be made by a state government but it is unconstitutional for the federal government to make these types of sweeping laws.

Liberals say "We need to give the workers' money away to those who are too lazy to provide for themselves!"
Then they say "We don't have enough money to pay for all of the 'necessary' programs for our great society."
Then they say "The only thing that we can do is take more money from those who have a job to pay for our programs".
Then they say "Hey, we now have more money in our coffers so we need to give more of it away!"
Then they say "We don't have enough money to pay for all of our new programs"
Then they say "The only thing that we can do is..............................."

Liberals are those who benefit from stealing from the people with jobs. And they loathe themselves for it.

Feel better?

There's your problem right there. There is no "they"- only we. When you and your wife or xhild disagree to you declare war on them? I disagree with many of my fellow citizens politically, both left and right. They are still my fellow citizens and their voice, their views are equal to my own under the Constitution of the United States of America.

chickaree wrote: There's your problem right there. There is no "they"- only we. When you and your wife or xhild disagree to you declare war on them? I disagree with many of my fellow citizens politically, both left and right. They are still my fellow citizens and their voice, their views are equal to my own under the Constitution of the United States of America.

But they can't be us because they are wrong and we are right. To lump them in with us would dilute our ability to stay on the side of right (as in right and wrong, not right and left or write and erase). All of us can't be us because then there would be no them for us to rally against. We'd all wander around looking for an adversary, and finding none there would be no conflict. With no conflict there is no need to think. Then, according to Descartes, we would simply cease to be.

They need us as much as we need them, but they will never be as right (again, right and wrong, not right and left, or Wilber and Orville) as us.

Only Liberals say those things, eh?

Ahh, the generalizations - 90 year olds and cripples thank you for telling them they are too lazy to work. And yes, I am taking it that way - those were your words as you ascribed them to others who never said them.