Certainly a possibility. It is a case of the bias of the current media, though. This kind of statement is on the same level as what got Howard Dean crucified by the media back in 2004, just of the opposite magnitude. If it had come from someone working for the democrats the media would already be screaming for their head and playing the funeral march for the candidate. Instead since it is a republican nobody cares.

Seems to be more true as time goes on.

Only if you will start over from page 1 and actually read it. If you are going to "skim it" instead and keep giving random soundbites of anger instead of reasoned criticisms then there is no point in trying.

So you didn't read my post at all then, did you?

Bash the boogey-man, why not? No need to think about the matter when someone has already told you who the demon is.

So that what can happen? You want to place people in power who will drive us even further to the right. Your side has been given >90% of what they have demanded of the federal government, and you bitch endlessly about the last 10% while the other side are taking it up the rear without lubrication.

No. You are inserting your beliefs here. Your beliefs have no basis in reality this time.

More importantly you have already admitted in multiple ways to having not actually read it. Why you insist on lying in the face of your own statements is not clear.

How can we have a dialogue on a text that you refuse to read? If I did the same about one of your blog posts you would respond the same way would you not?

You would then have a physical excuse for not reading it as you would be physically impeded from doing so. Now you have the text in front of you in a (presumably) readable fashion and are explicitly choosing not to read it.

Interesting spin, and interesting avoidance of the question.

The fact remains that the republican party today supports a restoration of the even-more-uneven distribution of power that we had before the labor revolution that brought us the 5 day workweek and other standard compensations. We have seen one conservative government after another oversee the dismantling of much of what we fought to get, which was also something that Martin Luther King Junior fought to support.

In other words, you have not yet provided a reason why that family would support what the republican party has become. I'm willing to concede that they would be almost certainly vastly disappointed in how poorly the democratic party supports labor these days, but they would likely run from the republican party as quickly as possible.

So tell us, oh enlightened one. What is the One True Path To Greatness?

Voting for Mickey Mouse won't do it; we know those votes go to /dev/null.

Getting a third party president in won't do it (even if it wasn't impossible) as it would just drive the democrats and republicans to work together to circumvent him.

Not voting won't do it either, as there is no minimum number of votes required to elect anyone in this country.

I expect within the next 20-30 years our country will dissolve into two or more new countries. Perhaps one or more of those new countries will try some of those ideas. Right now I'm just hoping that it comes and passes without bloodshed.

As per your usual M.O. you skipped my argument entirely.

I'll restate it for you this one time.

How would the King family come to terms with their desire to help working people - particularly in their support of working people being able to organize for negotiations and rights - with the fact that the republican party is very plainly opposed to such things?

I'll even concede that the democratic party has done a craptacular job of protecting workers' rights, as shown by the stagnation of wages, the drop in union membership, the loss of job security, the decrease in job benefits, etc. This of course does far more to support my earlier arguments of our country being on a constant march towards the right than anything.

The fact of the matter is though that the King family was very concerned about the plight of the working class, and the republican party is not at all. If you want to make a claim that they would have been independent voters (perhaps of a Bernie Sanders alignment) you can go for that but they most certainly would not be voting republican.

Wow, you read the page number at the bottom of the reader. Impressed? No, I am not.

It's debatable whether your reading style is worth being summarized as skimming. From your replies it seems you read at most 10% of the words. The fact that you go through "skimming" it and come out with the same conclusions on it that you had before you took it upon yourself to start "skimming" it supports the notion that you are not making anything resembling a vague attempt at comprehension. In fact I expect you would have been just as well off finding a Mandarin translation from the original German, and then attempt to read it in a mirror while gargling hydrogen peroxide and juggling flaming chainsaws.

Wow, impressive job of yet again completely abandoning your argument. You still haven't actually given a single instance of Reagan being more conservative than Obama. Not. One. Single. Instance.

The simple fact is that Reagan would have jumped for joy at the opportunity to sign the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, as it made us all obligate consumers and gave more power to powerful corporations. That was exactly the kind of thing that he happily endorsed throughout his presidency, and the kind of thing that every politician who has lifted his name on high has been trying to be the first to have associated with their own name. Considering every politician who has proposed an "alternative" to the law has basically proposed replacing it with itself, it appears you are one of the only people who doesn't understand this yet.

We've never had a president who was more conservative in actions than President Lawnchair. If you really want people to think that electing such a person would be a good idea then you need to explain why it has never happened before in history and why that is not a sign of it being a bad idea.

Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr was a republican, but that was when the republicans supported - rather than thwarted - the right of workers to organize. His family with their values wouldn't be republicans now, regardless of the color of their skin.

... my LG Android device doesn't perform well or get good battery life. It's a slug that is constantly running out of internal storage (which makes apps run like crap and prevents them from being updated) and gets about 6-8 hours of battery life on standby most days. I don't do any apps more complicated than google plus on it, and I don't view any videos of any kind on it.

Wow, 2/3rds magically became 90% under your special Tea Party math. Just because you happily learned an alternate math system doesn't mean you actually understand math, science, economics, or reality.

And frankly, it does not appear that you have read 90% of and comment I have written in the past year or so. If your reading of the Communist Manifesto is 90% of the "reading" you apply to my comments then you probably haven't read more than 30% of the words on the pages.

Give me a break. The minimal government expansion of the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is dwarfed by how much the federal government grew under Saint Ronnie. At the same time many other government employees have been given pink slips under President Lawnchair.