“25 REASONS: TIME FOR A SWITCH!”

by Steven Chavez

1. If you think your Party has been taken over by Far-Left Progressives, and beyond, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH! (Reagan did!)
2. If your moderate views are not being heard by those who have closed their ears, but they’re still wanting you to open your wallets, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH!
3. If you were fooled and tricked by empty promises, fancy language, and catchy slogans repeated so many times that you actually believed them, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH!
4. If all the “Change” you have left in your pockets are Abe Lincolns, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH!
5. If your vote is taken for granted because of your race and/or gender, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH!
6. If you think America is being forced, slowly but surely and in the dark of night, into the proven failure of Socialism/Communism, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH!
7. If you’re afraid of losing your 2nd Amendment right to protect your home, family, and yourself, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH!
8. If you’re tired of those who normalize and moralize immorality, then it’s TIME FOR A SWITCH!

Full post: http://criticalpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/25-reasons-time-for-a-switch/

What happens if the party you support exhibits all of these things and the other party offers nothing that is better? To what party would I switch? Listening to alot of people nowadays, they seem to indicate they are frustrated because they are disatisfied with BOTH parties and they won't waste their vote on a "Green Party/third party" candidate knowing they don't have a prayers chance of winning. Voting for the "lesser of the two evils" is getting real old.

So where does one go to seek a group of people who has a desire to do the right things by the people? Dunno. Political righteousness doesn't exist..... doubtful any of us will see it in our lifetime. Both parties are disgusting in their respective areas and neither have the majority of the people's best interest at heart as each caters to their chosen targets. JMO

Bocephus,

I hate to tell you this but Obama would be a moderate Republican if there were such a thing anymore. Ask a real progressive, Obama isn't one!!! It's just ridiculous to listen to all this garbage about him being progressive when it just isn't so. Of course, the GOP makes almost any politician look progressive; i.e. Ronald Reagan. The Gipper couldn't even get nominated in the GOP now!!!

TonyB,

I think Obama in his heart is about as far left as you can go (at least on domestic issues) but he is constrained by the realities of the position and by Congress. So he fights certain fights and gives up on others. In his mind we should all be riding on solar powered trains, performing "green" jobs, paying slavery reparations, guaranteeing free housing, food and medical care for all, and on and on.

Do people really think that after all these years, they are going to repeal the 2nd ammendment?  With all the weapons on the street, how long, how much man power would it take to remove every single gun/weapon from the citizens? 

VietVet wrote: Disclaimer: The above comments reflect my opinions and not those of Michael Elwood Presta The Third.

Vet, my conservative brother!!!  Being "independent" doesn't necessarily make one a moderate!!!

Many companies will not hire women with very young children (under 6 years) because they miss so much work

Stanky: personal questions such as that (are you married, do you have children, etc.) are illegal.  The interviewer cannot ask questions where the answers will indicate age, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.  chmoore

rngrmed wrote: Not only are physicals an issue,  the owner of the last recruiting company would not let me submit applicants based on their age.  If the considered them "old" (late 40's and older)  he wouldn't even consider.   I argued with him about this being illegal all the time.  He told me when I become the owner, I can submit them.

Your business owner is breaking the law. Needs to be reported. (sadly, might not do any good if he was reported)

Now, with that said, I'd like to tell you, that the 1974 age discrimination law posted in just about every workplace means little to nothing when it is actually challenged.

In 1994, while working for the Lords of Cincinnati....P&G, two over-50's male employees were chosen for "extermination" via the downsizing routine. They were selected out of a group of 24 younger technicians to lose their jobs. Both were Vietnam vets and both showed up for work each day, did what they were told to do and never had any disciplinary actions in their files. After they walked out the door for the last time at P&G, one with over 20 years of service and one with 10 years, one of them contacted the number on the poster from the law developed in 1974. The Chicago office rep responded to the broken law by telling the caller that they would "make note of the infraction and ASK P&G about it next time there was a visit from their office". Nothing ever surfaced from the employee reporting there had been a violation of the workplace law on age discrimination and the Act of 1974-Vietnam era vets development. Surprise surprise!!! End result. The Workplace Act of 1974, posted in just about every workplace is worthless and not worth the cardboard it is printed on. It is against the law to age discriminate, but it is done everyday by some company, somewhere......and when reported, the authorites turn a blind eye to the situation. The lawyers told one of them to take the buyout package and leave. Could challege P&G in court, maybe win, but by the time the legal fees were paid and P&G appeals were settled, there would be no money left for the downsized employee. P&G could tie it up in court for a long time if they chose, they have a money to do so. The employers have it figured out. They know the fired employee has little money to fight them. They know they will take the money and leave.

rngrmed, check with attorneys that specialize in this. I believe Jim Langendorf on University Blvd handles labor law questions.

Tony--what is progressive about stimulus $$ wasted, and adding trillions to national debt?

Like the Spider, I will also "hold my nose" when voting this time. As I've said before, don't like Obama's sponsorship of illegals and the rights they are reported to enjoy under his leadership. Don't like his minority push either. Have doubts about the Obama Care thing and don't like all the bail-out packages either. Simply don't know enough about Romney as yet to give him my vote. Seems vague in his message so far. Gonna have to ramp up the specifics to tell me what he is all about before November. Ryan? Need to know more about him too. At 63, I'm very interested in the future of Social Security and Medicare as I approach my chosen age to retire- 70. There is talk that Ryan wants to change things. I'm not going to be a happy camper if that happens. Will have paid into it for 51 years at age 70. Don't screw with what I put in. Ryan will need to clarify what he wants to do. Comes across like Josh Mandel......a kid with a squeeky voice. Are they of age to run for office? Just kidding.

SJ,

There was very little "progressive" in the 2009 stimulus. More than half of that was in the form of tax cuts to "small business"; you know, the "job creators". Yeah, the usual waste, fraud and government handout went along with it, too. This whole bulls*** about who created their business shows me which news organization you watch. No where and at no time did the president say that business owners didn't create their own business. What he said was that without the roads, bridges, electrical infrastructure, an educated work force, building a 21st century business would be impossible. No one lives in a vacuum. The very reason humans dominate the planet is our ability to work together and share information. In a consumer based economy, it is the customer who creates the business, i.e. a need to fill.
As for foreign policy, ask Osama bin Laden or Mummar Khadafi what they think of Obama's foreign policy. Oh, that's right, you can't 'cause their dead!!! We're out of Iraq, getting out of Afghanistan, and removed the dictator of Libya without losing a single person!!! Romney wants to go back into Iraq, stay in Afghanistan and start an immediate war with Iran!!! That seems to be quite a contrast in foreign policy.

Vet,
One thing caught my eye that I had to question. The idea that this whole economic problem started with Clinton. When Clinton left office, there was no annual budget deficit and the country's debt was decreasing. Tax cuts for the rich and two wars took care of that along with the Medicare pharmacy giveaway. Where Clinton screwed up was in revoking the banking regulations that eventually caused the banks to act like casinos and gambled pensions and mortgages which they lost. That is what needs restored is the division between "banking" and "investment" companies.