I think you've constructed a metaphorical train-wreck. On point, it's left yammering about deficits that I meant as soft on deficit reduction and bad politics in the long run. It would be like criticizing the Afghan campaign by saying we need to drop more bombs.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Max Sawicky wrote: > > > In general, not aimed at LP, the left opposition to BHO getting soft on > deficit reduction for the sake of dinging the White House is very bad > long-term politics. > > > How can anyone think of Obummer as "soft" on deficit reduction when, even > after his capitulation, he still imposes a wage cut on all federal > employees? Still offers nothing to state and local governments to prevent > teacher firings? > > And that same Obugger spoke of his "deal" as a deal with hostage-takers to > prevent injury to the "hostage." There are usually (and should always be) > negotiations with hostage-takers, ending, hopefully, with release of the > hostages and peaceable arrest of the criminals. > But when has a government ever paid $700 billion to the hostage-takers, > given them full immunity, allowed them to retain their loot in full > legality, and not even insisted that they release the hostage? > > Shane Mage > > The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according > to his need. > > The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each > according to his greed. > > Joe Stack (1956-2010) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
