We will witness another generation of young people rejecting social;ism as they struggle to find jobs and pay college loans. Obama is the best thing for Repubs since Carter.

Right. That's why Clinton got 2 terms. Your weak grasp on history is comical.

"That's why Clinton got 2 terms. Your weak grasp on history is comical."

#2 | Posted by LetUsPrey

I have two words for you "Mr. Historian": Ross Perot

1992: For Bill Clinton - 43.0% / Not for Bill Clinton - 56.4%

"1992: For Bill Clinton - 43.0% / Not for Bill Clinton - 56.4%"

It is said that only the losers remember the margins of victory/defeat.

The winners are remembered as "Mr. President."

#4 | Posted by Hans

Is it then your contention that Jimmy Carter did not have an effect on Bill Clinton's whopping 43% of support or are you disputing the effect Ross Perot had in Bill Clinton's 1992 election?

"Is it then your contention ..."

My contention is that only the losers remember the margins of victory/defeat.

The winners are remembered as "Mr. President."

#6 | Posted by Hans

Outstanding.
Carry on.

"Outstanding."

Of course.

"Carry on."

Will do.

loser? don't be so hard on yourself. it's not your fault - it's genetics.

and about remembering margins of victory...

i'm sure that's where you got your whole 'mandate' thingy.

but never mind that stat...loser.

You're a douchebag.

Europe and the United States are going through some big changes. Some people like CNBC's Jim Cramer think Europe might go to war if the Eurozone breaks up.

In our system the states have a hard time kicking the can down the road, and are reducing their public sector which hurts the Democrats, and helps the Republicans. As you can see in Ohio and Wisconsin the Democrats and Liberals are not going down without a fight.

The gravy train is running out of track and the can is kicking back.

"...and are reducing their public sector which hurts the Democrats, and helps the Republicans. "

Which is, naturally, typical short-term Republican "thinking" (such as it is).

Long-term, when people see their comfortable benefits, provided by the public sector, drying up, while the GOP continues to insist upon protecting the (already formidable) wealth of the 1%, the "help" will be on the side of the Democrats.

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" screams one teabagger sign. Well, when that teabagger (and many, many others) see their Medicare (and other public sector-provided benefits) going away, while the GOP continues to insist upon protecting the (already formidable) wealth of the 1%, they'll flock back to the Democratic Party.

#2 | Posted by LetUsPrey
Right. That's why Clinton got 2 terms. Your weak grasp on history is comical.
-----------------
Are you talking about President Bill Clinton who was a moderate not a liberal his last 6 years? If the answer is yes he was hardly a Liberal remember he signed Welfare reform, and NAFTA.

Also remember Ralph Nader, his votes came from disgruntled Democrats who said Clinton was too conservative.

"The gravy train is running out of track ..."

Except that the "gravy train" isn't running out of track:

"Also remember Ralph Nader, his votes came from disgruntled Democrats who said Clinton was too conservative."

When did Ralph Nader cause President Clinton to lose an election?

-Except that the "gravy train" isn't running out of track:

it shouldn't be news to anybody that most people favor tax increases on folks in higher tax brackets than themselves. and they can pretend they support cuts in spending all they want but you know that NONE of those respondents expect a cut to themselves.

and that doesn't address the problem of govt entities that have "kicked the can down the road" for decades.

yes, we can conclude that the can has kicked back.

2012 - The Year the Can Kicks Back

Article is blocked, but I certainly like the headline...

Especially appropriate seeing that 2011 was "The Year of the Kick Backs"

#15 | Posted by Hans

When did Ralph Nader cause President Clinton to lose an election?
---------------
I was talking the Al Gore election.

#14 | Posted by Han

Except that the "gravy train" isn't running out of track:

This month's New York Times poll found that 86 percent of moderates, and 74 percent of independents, support deficit reduction through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. It also found that 65 percent of moderates, and 57 percent of independents, favor tax hikes on those over $250,000.
--------------
Hans you must live in Disney Land. The states are broke so raising taxes won't work, for the last 20 years the CENSUS favors the South and the West (not the west coast), Democrat are reducing the size of the public sector, Europe is on the brink of bankruptcy.

When Democrats reduce the size of the public sector you know the gravy train is running out of tracks.

lol, that article is satire, right? it seems like a desperate wish by an even more desperate ideologue that the rtards have a hope in hell of winning the elections...what is even more pathetic is the right's willingness to give articles such as this one an once of credibility...times are tough for your poor bitches.

#14 Hans: Except that the "gravy train" isn't running out of track:

Those 'moderates' and 'independents' somehow aren't able to get Congress to actually cut spending and raise taxes enough to balance the budget ... which is still short of doing anything about the growing federal debt. Both sides in Congress can't agree and until that happens the hole we are in is getting deeper (billions/trillions of $$$) all the while.

If the federal budget status quo is the "gravy train" then it is indeed running out of track. Look for a big derailment in the near future.

"Hans you must live in Disney Land. The states are broke so raising taxes won't work"

That statement makes no sense. States may be broke but the wealthy are richer than ever. Raising taxes on them is going to happen.

"Look for a big derailment in the near future."
Hopefully we start cutting the military.

#23 Danni: Hopefully we start cutting the military.

I'd agree. The military will have to be cut to balance the budget, along with several other big programs that make up over half the federal budget.

1992: For Bill Clinton - 43.0% / Not for Bill Clinton - 56.4%

#3 | POSTED BY LIBERTARIAN_GI AT 2012-01-02 01:28 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Just because they did not vote for Clinton does not mean they would have automatically voted for Dole without Perot.