Captain Nagisus
Jake the Dog!
Somebody today confused Irish Republicans with American ones.
The "I hate Stupid Republicans" Thread
- Thread starter Raijin
- Start date
Medea
The Shadow Queen
NOBODY thinks abortion is a good thing either. I'll tell you the reason I'm pro-choice: What would people do if you took away that right? If you think outlawing abortion would stop abortion you're mistaken. People would still get abortions, but they would do it in unsanitary environments, like in back alleys with coat hangers. I think abortion is a necessary evil. It provides people with a clean, safe environment with professionals to perform the operation.
lol "opinions are evil". And "independents" like you are supposed act like this: Do nothing but defend the right, and complain about the left for everything they believe in. Just another typical closet-case conservative.
As opposed to what? Sending in U.S. ground forces to get killed, with even more possible Muslim casualties? Gee whiz.... That's a wonderful way to wage a war, isn't it? Why don't we go back to the Middle Age way of warfare while we're at it, and throw away all of our "useless" technology. Brilliant.
They better give money to help the poor, after being responsible for nearly EVERY WAR WE'VE EVER HAD. The initial reason we are in the Middle East now is because of Muslim extremists bombing the twin towers. You talk about political parties dividing people, while you are defending organized religion? That makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
Would you like some cheese to go with all that whine?
Doctor Langstrom
I want to be FEARED!
KaitoGhost
Sea Sponge First Mate
This is Todd Kincannon. He is an ex-executive director of the South Carolina GOP.
He couldn't resist making a ridiculous comment about white democrats. Twitter / ToddKincannon: A joke about Trayvon's documented ...
Is it any wonder why the democrats are gradually taking over the house?
You do realize that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on stupidity, right? Anyone remember Al Gore?
"I'M SUPER SERIAL, YOU GUYS! WE HAVE TO STOP MANBEARPIG!"
Doctor Langstrom
I want to be FEARED!
Very difficult to take you seriously when you are quoting one of the stupidest shows on television.
Ilrita
The Imperial Storm
Now that was a mighty big jump you made on my post. Obviously you missed the point. I never commented on whether or not abortion should be outlawed, nor did I make any comments on whether or not you should be pro-choice. I did, however, make comments on abortion itself. There is a very big difference.
But for the moment let us pretend I had offered such comments to the discussion; so then we shouldn't have any laws at all according to that logic. Why? Because people still break them.
Ah, I see. You believe in "necessary evil" yet you condemn Republicans for not believing in "necessary evil" and wish to spare the 45 million lives lost yearly and worldwide (China being the biggest contributor). So, then, do you believe Obama's drone strikes to be a "necessary" evil?
I defend justice and the true American way. I don't put myself on a side and condone their actions as "necessary". I see the wrong in all sides and am against organized political parties or even organized religion—not harbouring a one-sided loathing so deep it corrupts my very person.
And now you jump to baseless accusations. I take that "closet-case conservative" as an insult but I won't stoop to your level. Funny you insult me, Republicans and Conservatives for being "evil, crazy etc etc" when you are the one condoning the murder and mistreatment of thousands of people.
Hm.
Oh, what a logical explanation and reasoning.
More heinous justifications. Perhaps you should look into the face of a Pakistani and see the fear in their eyes when you mention drones, or watch them sob and beg God to stop the American drones killing their children before you can have an ounce of concern and passion for their lives.
Here's an idea.
End the war. Stop droning people.
They better give money to help the poor, after being responsible for nearly EVERY WAR WE'VE EVER HAD. The initial reason we are in the Middle East now is because of Muslim extremists bombing the twin towers. You talk about political parties dividing people, while you are defending organized religion? That makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
Ah, you must not have paid attention in history class if you believe they are responsible for nearly every war we have ever had. You must not have also looked into the political groups wanting the war after 9/11. Guess what? The democrats unanimously agreed to the Invasion of Afhganistan alongside the Republicans. Look into the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. Barack Obama even asked for a "surge" of troops in Afhganistan during his terms.
Really now, if you are going to make points against one side you should make sure that the side you are justifying murder for hasn't also participated in it.
Actually, had you actually asked, I would have told you I am against organized religion. However, it appears you mistook me showing you to be incorrect in your claims against Republicans and charity as me defending organized religion.
Now that makes sense.
If this was supposed to be a joke, it was terrible.
And please, there is no need to get upset over this and start to attack me. I have done nothing wrong to you nor did I do anything other than disagree with you.
KaitoGhost
Sea Sponge First Mate
Bad judgement is bad.
The OP3RaT0R
Call me Op. Or Smooth.
Proof, please? The only words in your statement that I see credible proof for were that Ayn Rand didn't like free market anarchism (which you speak of like it's holy, without making a case for it) and Rand said she did not like it because it generally treats non-initiation of force as some mystical concept with no philosophical backing and it rejected the objective rule of law put in place to protect individual rights.
Mr.Self Destruct
Chosen Undead
Honestly dismissing anybody that doesn't hold the same views as you as "stupid" is really ignorant and short-sighted.
Not to imply I'm right winged, in fact I'm much more the opposite but I have some conservative views.
Not to imply I'm right winged, in fact I'm much more the opposite but I have some conservative views.
KaitoGhost
Sea Sponge First Mate
Omega Dragon
Active Member
The very fact she did not support free market anarchism while claiming to support capitalism under the mindless tense that it can exist side-by-side with government or even while claiming America ever was a capitalist society, proves she supported corporatism - for corporatism is at its basic a political ownership by & of the corporate world. Hell, she openly supported the socialist democracy of Israel!
I've made my case clear for free market anarchism on even these forums; the only way individual rights can be protected is by abolishing government - for any government is a collective organization created by and for to protect the Collectivist while persecuting the Individual. For every government cannot exist without force; they cannot even leave the Individual to his own self-worth. Or else they fall apart.
The OP3RaT0R
Call me Op. Or Smooth.
"When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
"Government control of a country’s economy—any kind or degree of such control, by any group, for any purpose whatsoever—rests on the basic principle of statism, the principle that man’s life belongs to the state."
Her words right here. So we have what she said... and what you say she meant. So because she disagreed with you, she supported corporatism, though I see no evidence to support this. Can you tell me when she said to make you think this?
Also you say government cannot exist without force, but you neglect that force had ought to be retaliatory only. Retaliatory force is needed for the protection of individual rights, against criminals who would seek to use force or fraud to violate the rights of individuals.
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction." A government can exist without force - if nobody violates individual rights.
"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."
Medea
The Shadow Queen
You said that if I "had the knowledge" about abortion, that I would probably side with the pro-lifers. Sounds like you were commenting on whether or not I should be pro-choice to me.
It's not about whether people will break the law or not. It's about providing a safe and sanitary environment for people who need to get an abortion. My main point is that you are not going to perform surgery on yourself of any kind unless you want to die from infection. Without legalized abortion, even more lives would be lost.
The only thing I said is necessary was abortion. I'm against the war. But if our politicians and military are set in staying over there I think drone strikes are more effective than ground forces. All this talk of drone strikes being inherently evil is just asinine. Do you honestly believe your so-called sources? If drone strike were killing 50 innocents for every one terrorist, do you actually believe the government would even release that information, or even be using drones anymore? That's ridiculous. If the U.S. government is so evil, I highly doubt they would be ADVERTISING it to the world.
And speaking of baseless accusations, calling me "corrupt" and "condoning murder and the mistreatment of thousands of people" just because my opinions differ from your own is completely baseless, and a great way to make yourself look like a hypocrite.
If I wasn't paying attention, you were skipping class entirely.
Omega Dragon
Active Member
Yeah, care to provide how the government can be separated from an economy? No, you can't. Everything a government does inevitably effects even the smallest butterfly.
But you want to play the quote game? Alright, I can do that. Let's start with her ancestral worship of the filthy constitution.
The U.S. Constitution never was a limitation on the government. If you ever read the constitution, eg. whereas it allows for the levy of taxes and allows the federal government to regulate interstate constitution, you might have realized that.
Furthermore, the U.S Constitution was ever ONLY a piece of paper. As Lysander Spooner wrote, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” If we were to accept Ayn Rand's naive logic here, however, then she was either an idiot or liar for not acknowledging the Magna Carta & Articles of Confederation that came out before it.
Aside from the above reasons, there was no loophole. The federalists intentionally waited until Thomas Jefferson was out of country to ratify it; as Patrick Henry said speaking of the constitutional convention, "I smell a rat!"
The United States was never a nation of enlightenment. Patrick Henry would be rolling in his grave if he heard that bullplops; anyone to make such a statement clearly has no clue how the country was founded in spite of the Enlightenment due to its illegal ratification of the constitution.
America has never been noble, heroic, or just. Only small groups of people. Since the illegal ratification of the constitution, this has been a country in full support of war, invasions, murdering millions of innocents, torture, centralized banking systems, Zionism, & other barbaric practices.
The U.S. has never been a moral society, just one of the lesser immoral regions in the world. Both America as a government & a people supported and continue to support the very same European policies Ayn Rand has claimed to hate. There has never been and never will be such thing as a moral society, or a moral government for that matter.
Yeah, cause Israel really was friendly? She said that in 1979, after the Israelis declared war on the U.S. through their illegal attack on the U.S.S. Liberty!
Self-defense is how one exercises their property rights.
When you dare hit another person, you have broken the line. It tells any rational person that you don't care, that you've consented to being hit back. There is no force used against you when you willingly violate another's rights.
But government? It creates enemies; it breeds them, profits from them, becomes them, and murders them. If one single person exists outside of the system, government will demand to obtain it whatever the cost. So there is no objectivity with government, just force.
Anarchism has and is the only logical conclusion for the Individual, for everything else does lead to his persecution.
Ilrita
The Imperial Storm
If you got that from my post, you need to re-read it.
I was merely saying you would probably side with the ones who think it is evil if you knew what they knew. That is hardly a comment on whether or not you should be pro-choice.
So, then, making it illegal would mean they would not perform the necessary steps on themselves? You say "My main point is that you are not going to perform surgery on yourself of any kind unless you want to die from infection." and then go on to say "Without legalized abortion, even more lives would be lost.". The first implies that you are saying that if it were illegal no one would be performing abortions unless they want to die from infection, but the second...?
How are they more effective than ground forces? Thousands are still dying. They are killing thousands of people and it has only been at it for 4 years. Imagine the death toll by the end of Obama's last term and if these heinous decisions are kept, long after him.
My "so-callded" sources? Please tell me how my sources are wrong or untrustworthy. I gave you a video of Obama speaking about it, and you can find hundreds of images of the slaughter that is being done. Not only this but we have officials from our own countries talking about, as well as non-American governments, their officials and experts and civilians. There is also the wikileaks and if you claim that to be false, then you can't be convinced of anything it seems.
They didn't release them. You are being naive if you think that the statements are false simply because our government didn't release them. You are talking about the same gov that refuses to acknowledge or explain the "kill list" and "droning Americans" issue.
What part of civilian and outside sources did you not grasp from my last posts? These documents and the death toll are leaked, mostly from Wikileaks (in which Pakistan agreed with our president to have more drone strikes hit the country), and from civilians, new sources, governmental sources and more.
To claim my sources are not trustworthy is worthy of a laugh. Please look into the issue. Please.
I never said you were corrupted. I said I don't follow a single side and allow it to corrupt my very person. Please re-read this;
I see the wrong in all sides and am against organized political parties or even organized religion—not harbouring a one-sided loathing so deep it corrupts my very person.
Though you have expressed more than once your extreme dislike of the Republicans (to the point you accuse them to future assassinations), so I suppose it could be a corrupt feeling.
Actually, I said you condone it because you excused away and justified droning people. Which you did. It can't be a baseless accusation if you provided reasons for the accusation. Had you not mentioned such things, then perhaps it would be.
Ah. But this is coming from the one that thinks Republicans are responsible for all our wars and had no idea Democrats were involved in The War On Terrorism after 9/11.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
Did you miss the part where I said I thought abortion was a necessary evil? Like I said, nobody thinks abortion is "good". Only that it's necessary. Letting kids grow up in poverty and starving to death before they are five years old is just as evil.
This is one reason I don't like republicans (not talking about you, just making a point here): They want to end abortion because it's evil, but then refuse to provide any government assistance to help the families take care of their children because they don't believe in "free hand-outs", and then the child dies of starvation or disease. That makes no sense at all to me, whatsoever. Talk about "late-term abortions". They are the worst offenders of it!
No. My point was if you made it illegal they would still abort the baby, and harm themselves in the process because they would not have the skills or proper environment to perform an abortion. They would still go through with the abortion. It's just that they would most likely get an infection and die from it.
I don't like it either. I think we should get the hell out of the Middle East before our economy collapses and more lives are lost. But if you are looking at it from a military perspective, drones are indeed more effective because we don't have to sacrifice our troops own lives while attacking the enemy in the process.
I think you got me all wrong here. Do you want to know what I really think about the wars in the Middle East? I think the people that live there are defending themselves from a country (the U.S.) that doesn't need to be there anymore. The U.S. wants to establish their own form of democracy over there, and it isn't working. In the past, we eliminated their leaders because we thought they were simply too "socialist" and gave them brutal dictators, like the Shaw and Saddam Hussein, as replacements. WE are in the wrong. but that doesn't mean I blame the U.S. for all of it. The extremist elements of Islam are also to blame. They decapitated U.S. prisoners and released it on the world wide web. But still, we need to pack-up our bags and leave. We are arguing over nothing in this regard, because both of us are against the war. I don't think Obama is right all the time, but I wouldn't go so far as to call him a mass-murderer either. That is extreme.
Okay. But you did say this:
I said I think religion and the Military Industrial Complex is responsible for all our wars, and that Bush was just a puppet of big oil and the Military Industrial Complex. The dems went along with it. Hence the reason I think they are ineffective and basically useless at this point. However, I think if the dems were more effective, we would have free healthcare, more money from taxing the rich and a better economy, less people dying of starvation and disease because of so-called "entitlements", equal rights for everyone including homosexuals, less war, etc., etc.
That's why I think democratic policies are inherently good. The simple fact that republicans are blocking all of this, to me, means that they are beholden to nothing but corporate interests and the interests of the 1%. And when they block every policy that would be considered good and helping the less fortunate, what does that make them? Evil. There's no way around it. The republican party's policies could not be perceived in any other way if people would pull their heads out of their asses and look at the big picture. Instead, they consistently fall for nit-picky issues the right-wing media conjures up to distract people from what they are really doing.
I've spent my two cents here. This is all my opinion. I could care less if people don't like it. The republican party is dying out anyway. Thank God for people who refuse to go back to segregation, slavery, inequality for women, persecution of homosexuals, child labor, back-alley abortions, McCarthyism, monopolies, and tyranny.
You can also thank the liberal policies and movements that made all of this happen.
Ilrita
The Imperial Storm
No, I hadn't, but you seem bent on the notion that I had.
You actually think most of the abortions are to save lives from the fate of poverty? Most of these come from teen pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies not in a poor household, but simply because they were either 1) a mistake and 2) unwanted.
I think you misunderstand the Republican stance on the subject, though I don't think it is entirely your fault. The Republicans tend to think everyone knows what they think.
They don't have a problem with helping out the poor, they thinking just handing them "governmental aid" is not the way to help them get out of poverty. That's why they called Obama the "Food Stamps President". They believe that if more was done to help the job crisis instead of just giving them Food Stamps, then there wouldn't be so many poor people in America.
And I disagree with the Republican stance on the matter as well, but I certainly don't assume the stance to be on all of them or dislike them for it. They have their own idea of how to fix the economy, and that is all. It isn't like they don't like helping poor people. My links and previous posts proves that.
Ah, you worded it like they would be discouraged from self applied abortions because of infection. Alright, I agree with you on this. However, I know Republicans wish to end abortion in all, but a majority of them wish to stop the abortions being performed over 3 months. Scientifically the fetus is alive even before this point; they can think, dream, feel, and more and yet women are allowed to abort them up to six months or even after they are born.
That's mainly why the Republicans disprove of abortion. Well, that and to them ending a life is a sin.
Then our soldiers' lives mean more than their lives? Droning needs to stop. At least the child casualties were not so high during ground force movements. Now children are mostly dying.
The Shaw of 1979 was actually a very nice man. I don't understand why so many people have such incorrect opinions of them. He was a very "modern" man, disproved of Islamic extremism, let his women dress and do as they pleased (I don't mean "his" women), supported technology and other religions, and was approving of the west. The Iranian Revolution occurred mostly because he didn't think Moderately like his civilians, that he was friendly with us and the Israelis, that he did not follow the tidbits of the Quran de-equalizing other genders/races/religious people literally and had respect for others. That is the reason he was overthrown. During his rulership people were actually free and Americans and other non-Iranians weren't killed or raped. He was the one man in the Middle East we should have continued to support, but we didn't.
We have been at this war for 10 years and have only gained killing some terrorists who are or will be later replaced. Our presence in most of these countries only anger the terrorists more. We should not stop fighting the cause, but we should not continue the way we have been going. It is failing. This includes the inhumane drone strikes.
When you kill hundreds or thousands of people, you sadly are a mass-murderer. Just because he didn't take the life from them with his own hands does not change what he has done. He approves of these strikes and gave the orders to do it, and continues to support such actions.
There is nothing extreme over my statements. This is the same as Saddam. I'm sure he killed people himself, but he ordered death through the work of his men and their weapons, and he is still a mass-murderer.
Yes, I did say that. I don't remember denying that bit because you did reason away/justify the drone strikes and Obama's "innocence".
And I disagree. Religion is not a living thing capable of harm and it is illogical to say it does. Men and only men can be held responsible because they are the ones doing the wrong. Religion preaches stories, examples, lessons and positive movements if you read in the right context and understand the time in which the books of those said religions were made in. It is men who have twisted the words and examples to do their evil bidding and it is false to claim religion is the problem.
Well the Democrats are in the Big House now and none of that is of concern to them. They talk pretty words and say they "tried", but most of the time, they haven't. They wish to feed and keep the poor as they are by giving them temporary relief, but continue on with failing ideas on getting the economy on track.
The Democrats are not more effective in this cause than the Republicans are, our debt and the Republican/Religious charity proves this.
Parties are a problem. It is time we return to "Americans", not "Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Independents," or anything else. The division between us is keeping us from caring to those who need it and restoring America to country that should be the country others look up to being, not the ones the wish to separate from.
Even though you are incorrect about the Republicans, you say this makes them evil but Obama killing people doesn't?
They block it for certain aspects of it, not because of the nature of the bill. For example, as the Republicans call it, the "Obamacare" bill will charge all those who do not pay its tax (yes, it is a tax) and that includes the poor who cannot even pay their bills or send their children to school, or buy them food, or toys, or doctor visits. Yet Obama thinks it makes sense to penalize them for not accepting this bill and will slowly increase this tax should they fail to pay it, which will end up putting the person in jail and or prison.
The Republicans reject this because this bill is a terrible bill. They don't reject attempting to help people, they reject how Obama or the other side is going about it. I hope you understand now and it is insulting to say the Republicans do not care for poor people or their needs. Insulting and incorrect.
Again with incorrect knowledge and hateful generalizations. You obviously have no idea it was the Republican party responsible, too, for the Civil War and the breakage of Slavery and into promoting economic and financial modernization (President Abraham Lincoln, for example). Also, you must have been told a falsehood. The North also still had slaves (can anyone safe California?), and they were also Democrats, so...!
Republicans are not dying out.
Liberal Policies made that happen? Perhaps you should look into the Civil War again. lol
You have only reinforced my points with your posts. The Democrats have preformed inhumane actions (tyranny) just as much as the Republicans, but you reason it away with almost pathetic excuses, generalizations and incorrect knowledge.
If this is your opinion and you don't care for why it is disagreed with, then perhaps you shouldn't partake in calling a group of people, fellow Americans, evil because of your bigotry concerning their own opinions.
I hope you do not feel this extreme dislike for the Republicans or religious people for any time longer and realize how hateful and wrong you are being right now.
Have a good day or night,
P.S
So I guess it was a "yes" to the "or will you ignore my post" question?
KaitoGhost
Sea Sponge First Mate
This likely comes as a surprise to many, but I tend to lean to the left on many issues, certainly more than I lean to the right. However, there is one giant issue that I just can't agree on with the Democratic party: Control. More laws, more regulations, political correctness, this is okay, that is not. The Democrats just seem to want to stick their hands into my daily life far more than is necessary, and that is something I just cannot abide. The Republicans are the same, but to a lesser extent.
The problem with both parties is that they not only create, but encourage people to be close-minded. How many voters out there base their entire decision off of what party the candidates belong too? Sure, the guy may be the child of Satan, but he's a Republican, so he's got my vote! She may be a completely selfish, uncaring bitch, but hey, she's a Democrat, so she must be a good leader! Foolish. Instead of actually looking at the individuals running, we look at the group they claim to be a part of. A leader is supposed to be someone you'd follow into hell and back, someone you can actually believe in. When I look at Washington, I just don't see it, from either party. There isn't a man or woman in Congress that I would be willing to step in front of an assassin's bullet for. And I find that more than a little troubling.
Just my two cents worth.
The problem with both parties is that they not only create, but encourage people to be close-minded. How many voters out there base their entire decision off of what party the candidates belong too? Sure, the guy may be the child of Satan, but he's a Republican, so he's got my vote! She may be a completely selfish, uncaring bitch, but hey, she's a Democrat, so she must be a good leader! Foolish. Instead of actually looking at the individuals running, we look at the group they claim to be a part of. A leader is supposed to be someone you'd follow into hell and back, someone you can actually believe in. When I look at Washington, I just don't see it, from either party. There isn't a man or woman in Congress that I would be willing to step in front of an assassin's bullet for. And I find that more than a little troubling.
Just my two cents worth.
Ilrita
The Imperial Storm
Exactly!
Parties have contributed to close-minded citizens, problems and ineffectiveness. Far too many times have I asked a Democrat "why do you support Obama?" and was answered with "um, he's Democrat and lets me keep my rights.", and I'll ask, "how so?" and they just stare dumbly at me. When I asked a Republican, the same thing just reverse the one they support.
No one has reason any more, just an affiliation they feel they need to be apart of. It is sad, and supports segregation and ignorance.
✓
I would rep you, but I cannot for some reason.
It is the open-minded people who look out for the welfare of others, it is the ones who seek fairness among all that seeks the best of humanity, and it is the ones who can see the good in every man when it is there that will help us be better people.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
I'm not going through another goddamn word wall of nonsense and picking out talking points. I've made my say, so I'm just going to respond to a few things that I think need to be addressed.
BTW Your an independent huh? Every argument you've made is one a conservative extremist would make. I'm guessing you're a member of the tea party. You call me extreme? The only reason this argument has gone this far is because you couldn't handle the fact that my opinion differed from your own. YOU made the first quote. Here it goes:
I'm not going to change my mind on abortion.
I'm done talking about drone strikes.
Republicans DO have a problem with helping out the poor. If not, why would they be against raising taxes on the rich by a scant 4%? Especially when many corporations have loopholes to avoid paying taxes at all. All the burden is on the poor and middle class. It's just pure greed.
The Shaw I was referring to was Khomeini. I don't know who you are talking about. Khomeini executed political opponents, including the families and friends of those opponents, in his brutal campaigns. He also ordered the deaths of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988. Obama, on the other hand, signed executive orders to close down Gitmo but the republicans block him. Once again, it's the republicans with the evil policies. What they basically did is make it impossible to relocate the prisoners, so they'd have to stay in Gitmo, or be shipped off to Cuba and set free.
Again, you say parties are a problem but you continue to defend the republicans on every issue and attack Obama and the democrats. You're not an independent. Just admit it. A true independent would've voted for Obama anyway, because that's what Obama is. Obama is hardly an extreme democrat. He's not even close to Bill Clinton, for example. But the last three republican presidents were pressured by their party to be as far right as possible. Even Fox News admitted this, after they lost to Obama again. Bush was extreme. McCain was turned into John W. McBush when he ran in 2008, and Romney was pressured into being extreme as well. Obama won because he wasn't as extreme as they were. Plain and simple.
The republicans were conservative during the Civil War? And you think I wasn't paying attention in history class? I've been waiting for this one. During the Civil War, the republican party WAS the liberal party. Ever hear of the Dixiecrats? It's a term used to describe the south during that time period, which was full of CONSERVATIVE democrats. The republican Party was enacting liberal policy all the way up until Teddy Roosevelt. He broke-up the monopolies and trusts that were ruining the country at that time. It would be like Obama today breaking up all the corporations, and being a REAL socialist, but he only wants to raise taxes on the rich a little bit and the republicans are having a full-on plops fit.
Another history lesson for you: During the 1950s the top margain tax rate was over 90%. That's right, the rich in the 1950s paid over 90% taxes under REPUBLICAN president Eisenhower. Today, the tax rate is 35%, and like I said before, corporations have loopholes they use, such as tax write-offs, to where they pay far, far less than that.
As far as ignoring your post in the other thread, I just don't feel like getting into another argument, over the same issues, where I have to constantly defend my beliefs from a denialican.
