To: bossmechanic
“...but you do yourself a disservice characterizing Romney and Obama as equally distasteful.”””
A Progressive Republican is more dangerous than a Progressive Democrat in the Presidency.
To: Presbyterian Reporter
"A Progressive Republican is more dangerous than a Progressive Democrat in the Presidency."
I think Bush is pretty clear evidence of that. Not only was compassionate conservationism bad, it led directly to obumber. I'm a Newt fan, but I always planed to vote for anybody but obumber. But you make a good point and something I need to think about.
155 posted on
01/05/2012 2:55:33 PM PST by
JoSixChip
(Top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of total income taxes collected. Bottom 50% pay less then 3%, fair?)
To: Presbyterian Reporter
-—”A Progressive Republican is more dangerous than a Progressive Democrat in the Presidency.”
So you’re saying a 50% bad candidate is worse than a 100% evil thug? Please explain yourself as I don’t find this logical.
228 posted on
01/05/2012 3:59:46 PM PST by
AlanGreenSpam
(Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
To: Presbyterian Reporter
A Progressive Republican is more dangerous than a Progressive Democrat in the Presidency. Amen, Bro/Sis Freeper.
647 posted on
01/06/2012 5:44:47 PM PST by
Finny
("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson