NationStates Jolt Archive

A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - July - 2004


Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a
deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him
considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.


Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a
worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's
deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect
Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before
the Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark).

He is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government
liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

oh, the inherant flaws of partisan politics

It made me chuckle, is all.

oh, the inherant flaws of partisan politics
indeed. if "Joe Democrat" is black then he is forced to thank (GASP) a Republican for the fact that he is not legally a piece of property.

this partisan crap is annoying. neither liberals nor conservatives have it entirely right, so get over yourselves.

indeed. if "Joe Democrat" is black then he is forced to thank (GASP) a Republican for the fact that he is not legally a piece of property.

this partisan crap is annoying. neither liberals nor conservatives have it entirely right, so get over yourselves.

i think the funniest part of the thread is that he is refering to the democratic party as liberals

i think the funniest part of the thread is that he is refering to the democratic party as liberals
also a good point. i am essentially a classic liberal by orientation, and the Democrats have as little in common with me as the Republicans.

I liked it because it puts liberals in a good light, but, at the same time doesn't mention flaws. It's good for education children...

OK, I've got a serious problem with this. What the hell is Joe doing riding the subway when he's got a perfectly good car at home that has passed Car and Driver's Safety tests?

OK, I've got a serious problem with this. What the hell is Joe doing riding the subway when he's got a perfectly good car at home that has passed Car and Driver's Safety tests?

As weird as it sounds, I was wondering about that myself.
What, he's worried about the rising oil prices?

YOu missed the best part of Joe's day!
where he gets shot on the street by a mugger because some conservative fought so hard to maintain the right to bear arms!

Wow. I'm actually really encouraged by reaction so far. No flaming, an acknowlegement that 'liberal' is a misnomer, recognition that partisan politics is crap and that neither then Dems or the Reps have got it right.

Hmm, think I was hasty in posting this. Not sure what I was thinking. Apologies to all, please let the thread wither and die.

Best wishes.

A liberal wakes up in America, which, thanks to several thousand Republicans, is where he lives.

EDIT: Then he spends the day acting enlightened, despite the fact that he plainly isn't.

A liberal wakes up in America, which, thanks to several thousand Republicans, is where he lives.

EDIT: Then he spends the day acting enlightened, despite the fact that he plainly isn't.

And of course your basis for this is the fact that so many of our Repubican leaders served their country proudly in the military? Wait a second.....hrmmm.

And of course your basis for this is the fact that so many of our Repubican leaders served their country proudly in the military? Wait a second.....hrmmm.

The basis is that America was founded as a Republic, by Republicans. As far as I'm aware Dubya wasn't around back then, and nor were any other present day Republicans.

Be honest, if liberals had tried to found America, they would have got off the boat, apolygised to the Indians and gone home.

The basis is that America was founded as a Republic, by Republicans. As far as I'm aware Dubya wasn't around back then, and nor were any other present day Republicans.

Be honest, if liberals had tried to found America, they would have got off the boat, apolygised to the Indians and gone home.
actually, the original Republican party was the liberal party, and was founded almost one hundred years after the US was formed as a nation. political changes over the next hundred years after its founding led to Republicans becoming the conservative party.

Be honest, if liberals had tried to found America, they would have got off the boat, apolygised to the Indians and gone home.

ya, because the rape and pillaging of those people worked out so much better

actually, the original Republican party was the liberal party, and was founded almost one hundred years after the US was formed as a nation. political changes over the next hundred years after its founding led to Republicans becoming the conservative party.

That's very interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that the founders of America were Republicans. I'm not saying that they would support Bush, or his party, which just happens to be known as the Republican party.

That's very interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that the founders of America were Republicans. I'm not saying that they would support Bush, or his party, which just happens to be known as the Republican party.

hitlers party was socialist

ya, because the rape and pillaging of those people worked out so much better
If your talking about which way would have worked in founding a country, yeah.

If your talking about which way would have worked in founding a country, yeah.
It hasn't done much good for the world has it though... (nukes bush ect.)

That's very interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that the founders of America were Republicans. I'm not saying that they would support Bush, or his party, which just happens to be known as the Republican party.

Oh, I see. The basis of your comments are....well....baseless. OK, I understand now. Federalists....Republicans....yeah, they share so many common points with one another. Yes, I see now.

*Backs away slowly*

ya, because the rape and pillaging of those people worked out so much better

I suppose that depends on what you would call 'working out better'.

If you view setting up the world's richest and most powerful nation as a success, then you could say it did work out better. :D

It hasn't done much good for the world has it though... (nukes bush ect.)
To think, we could be speaking German right now. :rolleyes:

If your talking about which way would have worked in founding a country, yeah.

*stamps a big red IGNORANT on your forehead*

thanks for comming by

Natives never wanted "nations" and had a fully functional system that worked, in many ways, better than the systems in place in europe.

Yes, the nationalists were better at forming a nation, good for you

Oh, I see. The basis of your comments are....well....baseless. OK, I understand now. Federalists....Republicans....yeah, they share so many common points with one another. Yes, I see now.

*Backs away slowly*

Was America founded as a Republic? Yes.
By republicans? Yes.

Therefore there is a base to my argument.

hitlers party was socialist

:confused: ... Fantastic! Strictly speaking they were National Socialists, but I suppose you were close enough. Have a gold star. :p

*stamps a big red IGNORANT on your forehead*

thanks for comming by

Natives never wanted "nations" and had a fully functional system that worked, in many ways, better than the systems in place in europe.

Yes, the nationalists were better at forming a nation, good for you
Yeah they were. So then I don't know why you're calling me ignorant. You said "ya, because the rape and pillaging of those people worked out so much better" and I was just agreeing with the statement, even though you originally made it with a sarcastic overtone. As EnglandmyEngland said, "If you view setting up the world's richest and most powerful nation as a success, then you could say it did work out better."

To think, we could be speaking German right now. :rolleyes:

to think, a country that didn't get involved in the largest war in history till it was almost over has the gall to act like they won it for everyone else..

or..

To think, said country goes on a half century later or so to accuse another country that refuses to get involved in a squabble over oil, "cheese eating surrender monkeys"

Was America founded as a Republic? Yes.
By republicans? Yes.

Therefore there is a base to my argument.

Your initial statement was this: "A liberal wakes up in America, which, thanks to several thousand Republicans, is where he lives."

You are trying to lead people into believing that, thanks to modern day Republicans, liberals have America. However, there is no base to show that the Federalists who founded our country had any resemblance to the modern day Republican party. The very fact that Federalists believed in a centralized government flies in the face of the current Republican platform, which would grant the majority of the power to the states and leave a shell of a central government remaining.

While your wording is essentially true, the basis behind your wording is misleading. That is called an act of deception.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that your comments are baseless.

to think, a country that didn't get involved in the largest war in history till it was almost over has the gall to act like they won it for everyone else..

or..

To think, said country goes on a half century later or so to accuse another country that refuses to get involved in a squabble over oil, "cheese eating surrender monkeys"
I don't know what you're talking about. There was no fight over oil and the US got involved in WW2 in 1941, which is fully before the biggest years of fighting and well before the commonly held turning points of the war.

Your initial statement was this: "A liberal wakes up in America, which, thanks to several thousand Republicans, is where he lives."

You are trying to lead people into believing that, thanks to modern day Republicans, liberals have America. However, there is no base to show that the Federalists who founded our country had any resemblance to the modern day Republican party. The very fact that Federalists believed in a centralized government flies in the face of the current Republican platform, which would grant the majority of the power to the states and leave a shell of a central government remaining.

While your wording is essentially true, the basis behind your wording is misleading. That is called an act of deception.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that your comments are baseless.

You see, the initial starter of this thread referred to 'Joe' only as a 'Republican', and not as a 'member/voter of the modern day Republican party'. It seems that you and I have been argueing at cross-purposes.

While your wording is essentially true, the basis behind your wording is misleading. That is called an act of deception.

You've hit the nail on the head. ;)

"I was just trying to get a rise out of you, man - you know, for shits and giggles!" :D

You see, the initial starter of this thread referred to 'Joe' only as a 'Republican', and not as a 'member/voter of the modern day Republican party'. It seems that you and I have been argueing at cross-purposes.



You've hit the nail on the head. ;)

"I was just trying to get a rise out of you, man - you know, for shits and giggles!" :D

LOL...touche. OK, you got me on that one. But now we run into the problem that Joe is an out of class boob who belongs to a party that hasn't been in existense for close to 200 years. How the hell did he get a job that pays so well and get a car that is so nice in the first place? Is there a secret Federalist brotherhood that gets people these jobs? I'm willing to switch party affiliations for a better job!

Oh yeah, I try never to giggle until 5 pm. Its just darned unprofessional. Of course, I do have to go to a training workshop next week on motivation...and the speaker is Zig Ziglar...as much as I'll try, I fear giggling will take place.

I don't know what you're talking about. There was no fight over oil and the US got involved in WW2 in 1941, which is fully before the biggest years of fighting and well before the commonly held turning points of the war.

You, and all other readers may be interested to know that the Americans only got involved in WW1 in 1916, and WW2 in 1941. What is interesting about this is that America entered, both times, shortly after Britain and Germany began to draw up peace agreements.

To put it in a way which is easy to understand, in both cases the main fight could have finished, but then the US piled in, and the war ended on continuing, and millions of people ended up dying.

In actual fact, while America proclaim to have saved people, all that they really did was keep a dying flame alive.

*ignores debate*

I liked that, Ecopoeia :)

LOL...touche. OK, you got me on that one. But now we run into the problem that Joe is an out of class boob who belongs to a party that hasn't been in existense for close to 200 years. How the hell did he get a job that pays so well and get a car that is so nice in the first place? Is there a secret Federalist brotherhood that gets people these jobs? I'm willing to switch party affiliations for a better job!

Oh yeah, I try never to giggle until 5 pm. Its just darned unprofessional. Of course, I do have to go to a training workshop next week on motivation...and the speaker is Zig Ziglar...as much as I'll try, I fear giggling will take place.

I'm glad that we can laugh about this. :)

I find that people on the internet tend to get very agressive when you try to have a joke with them, but you don't seem to feel the need to.

My hat comes off to you Thunderland - a man who can take a joke.

You, and all other readers may be interested to know that the Americans only got involved in WW1 in 1916, and WW2 in 1941. What is interesting about this is that America entered, both times, shortly after Britain and Germany began to draw up peace agreements.

To put it in a way which is easy to understand, in both cases the main fight could have finished, but then the US piled in, and the war ended on continuing, and millions of people ended up dying.

In actual fact, while America proclaim to have saved people, all that they really did was keep a dying flame alive.
I haven't seen any evidence to show that peace agreements were anywhere reasonably close to being accepted. Also note that in WW2, Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa.

I thought the US didn't get involved until 1917...

<slinks back to lurker-dom>

You, and all other readers may be interested to know that the Americans only got involved in WW1 in 1916, and WW2 in 1941. What is interesting about this is that America entered, both times, shortly after Britain and Germany began to draw up peace agreements.

To put it in a way which is easy to understand, in both cases the main fight could have finished, but then the US piled in, and the war ended on continuing, and millions of people ended up dying.

In actual fact, while America proclaim to have saved people, all that they really did was keep a dying flame alive.

America entered World War II well before the outcome was guaranteed. In fact, it wasn't until Operation Uranus during the Battle for Stalingrad that Hitler's Armies had even been defeated and that was during the year of 1942.

No one claims that America is the sole reason for the outcome of World War II, but one must admit to the fact that the western front would have largely turned out much different had we not been there. There were no peace agreements in the workings between England and Germany in 1941, other than Germany offering to accept England's unconditional surrender. While England could have held out for a while, without American intervention in World War II, England would have eventually fallen. England was also heavily dependent upon supply convoys from the United States from 1939 and 1941.

Picture World War II without American intervention: Hitler's defeat in Stalingrad does one of two things:

1. Forces Germany's hand by repositioning the bulk of their army into Russia, causing a massive slaughter on both sides but leading to an eventual defeat of the less advanced Russian military. Plain and simple, the Russians simply wouldn't have had the advantage once the winter broke. Hitler's sacrifice of the 6th army was stupid.

While possible that Russia could have fought them to a stalemate, it is unlikely that even with superior numbers, the Russian army could have broken through the full force of the German army.

2. Forces Germany's hand to accept a shaky ceasefire. Without serious competition along the west front, Hitler could have shifted his battle hardened eastern front veterans into Africa and demolished the English expeditionary forces there. While the British Isles may not have fallen, it is likely that England would something similar to the French government, a puppet force ruled from Berlin.

It is likely that with no further threat from the British Isles, Hitler or Stalin would break the peace agreement, forcing a conflict that may have stretched decades.

The American military in World War II was an integral part of Germany's defeat. Without that piece in place, the world would look much different today. While saying that, it is also important to note the extreme sacrifices of the Russian military. Again, a very integral part of Germany's defeat. There wouldn't have been an Allied victory if either of those two pieces were in place.

Now, as for World War I, America entered the war when Germany sank one of our ships. While our presence did not end the war, it hastened the end result by probably 5 years. But we did the same thing that every other country did during that war: we jumped into a conflict because of someone else's actions. It is likely that Germany would have eventually agreed to put an end to World War I without American involvement, but France would have suffered a lot more devastation as a result of such delays.

My hat comes off to you Thunderland - a man who can take a joke.

Darn it! I can not! Shaddup you meanie! Wait...that was a compliment...um...well....shaddup you meanie!!!

That's very interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that the founders of America were Republicans. I'm not saying that they would support Bush, or his party, which just happens to be known as the Republican party.
um, yes it does...did you not read my post? THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DID NOT EXIST IN ANY FORM UNTIL WELL AFTER THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED.

YOu missed the best part of Joe's day!
where he gets shot on the street by a mugger because some conservative fought so hard to maintain the right to bear arms!

Hey, hey... that's the freaking Second Amendment. I don't think liberals could strike that down if we tried, and I suspect most of us wouldn't want to.

The basis is that America was founded as a Republic, by Republicans. As far as I'm aware Dubya wasn't around back then, and nor were any other present day Republicans.

Be honest, if liberals had tried to found America, they would have got off the boat, apolygised to the Indians and gone home.

The Republican party didn't exist when America was founded. Neither did the Democrats. And in fact, liberals DID found America. They were challenging and breaking away from tradition - that of England. Liberal/conservative orientation has to be judged by the time in which it occurred. With the parties, as far as I'm concerned, party lines hardly matter when you see how much they have changed. Liberals, conservatives, and moderates all exist in both major parties, always have and always will, and those parties change so incredibly much over time that it doesn't work to use them as standards of ideology. In Lincoln's time, I probably would have been a Republican. In FDR's, I would have been staunchly Democratic. Now, I'm kind of disgusted with both.

ah yes. I thank the "liberals" for strangulating American business with thier regulations so that Joe's neighbors no longer have a job( but now all of the stuff Joe buys has exactly the same amount of paint in it). I thank them for putting a warning label on a childs toy warning me that it is not, in fact a flotation device. I thank them for ensuring that Joe's mother will have to go to Canaday or Mexico to get life saving medication because it is not approved in the US yet. So thank you "liberals" for creating a system of laws and regulations that is impossible for one man ever to comprehend. Thank you for stifling creativity, and forcing the conglomeration of Big Business (for only a mega corporation can afford to produce anything anymore). once again, I thank you.

;)

"Liberals" and "Conservatives" are both wrong in many regards. All of those nice "positive" regulations that you mentioned had many negative repercussions. I will reiterate "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH" Translation: no matter what you do, someone is always going to pay for it. Paper plans to change the world will work in only one enviroment, on the paper itself. you cannot quantify human reactions, so any plans you create will ultimatly fail, Period. Both sides need to be willing to admit this failure and stop hiding behind their own propaganda.

ah yes. I thank the "liberals" for strangulating American business with thier regulations so that Joe's neighbors no longer have a job( but now all of the stuff Joe buys has exactly the same amount of paint in it). I thank them for putting a warning label on a childs toy warning me that it is not, in fact a flotation device. I thank them for ensuring that Joe's mother will have to go to Canaday or Mexico to get life saving medication because it is not approved in the US yet. So thank you "liberals" for creating a system of laws and regulations that is impossible for one man ever to comprehend. Thank you for stifling creativity, and forcing the conglomeration of Big Business (for only a mega corporation can afford to produce anything anymore). once again, I thank you.

;)

"Liberals" and "Conservatives" are both wrong in many regards. All of those nice "positive" regulations that you mentioned had many negative repercussions. I will reiterate "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH" Translation: no matter what you do, someone is always going to pay for it. Paper plans to change the world will work in only one enviroment, on the paper itself. you cannot quantify human reactions, so any plans you create will ultimatly fail, Period. Both sides need to be willing to admit this failure and stop hiding behind their own propaganda.

So can we assume that given your bemoaning the regulations that businesses face now that you would prefer to go back to the robber baron days when business had no such restrictions at all? Back when monopolies controlled every major American industry and the worker was at the mercy of of the whims of the owner?

You would prefer to go back to the day when your town was owned by the company which had the factory, mine, industry that was there and you had to pay the company for everything and never was able to rise out of being indebted to the company? The only place you could shop was the company store with company script? If you disagreed with having to work 16 hour days and watching your son go to work at age 12, the company would send armed men into your home and evict you, since you didn't own any of it but were intead renting from the company?

I understand your comments about sometimes things go too far. Its just downright sad that drying agent for stereo equipment has to have printed on it "DO NOT EAT." I mean, seriously....that's just sad. I also understand that there are negative repercussions for every regulation that is imposed. However, as you said, what works on paper only works on paper. In reality, paper plans need to be fine tuned, tweaked, and amended to get the best possible solution. But in these types of cases one must weigh the potential benefits and shortcomings of every regulation.

I absolutely agree with you that both sides need to admit their shortcomings and failures and work together to get the best possible solutions. Hiding behind their propaganda, as you put it, does indeed do nothing. However, to bring this back to our current political spectrum, would you prefer to have a president who believes wholeheartedly in partisan and heavy handed politics or one who can go across the aisle to produce collaborative results?

Clinton, despite his social ineptitude, was an expert in getting compromised results from both Democrats and Republicans. What resulted was a joint effort of both parties to produce nearly a decade of unheard of prosperity. Bush, on the other hand, chooses to cram policy through without any assistance of both sides. The country is more divided than it has been in 4 decades. What is resulting is anger, hostility, failed economics, and a country that is reeling.

Now, for those of you who state that they would rather chose a known evil to an unknown one, I would ask you this. If you could do something to rid yourself of a known evil, isn't it your obligation to do such? Isn't it your obligation to vote against Bush?

Clinton, despite his social ineptitude, was an expert in getting compromised results from both Democrats and Republicans. What resulted was a joint effort of both parties to produce nearly a decade of unheard of prosperity. Bush, on the other hand, chooses to cram policy through without any assistance of both sides. The country is more divided than it has been in 4 decades. What is resulting is anger, hostility, failed economics, and a country that is reeling.


*applauds*

i think the funniest part of the thread is that he is refering to the democratic party as liberals

HAHAHAHAHA!

So can we assume that given your bemoaning the regulations that businesses face now that you would prefer to go back to the robber baron days when business had no such restrictions at all? Back when monopolies controlled every major American industry and the worker was at the mercy of of the whims of the owner?

You would prefer to go back to the day when your town was owned by the company which had the factory, mine, industry that was there and you had to pay the company for everything and never was able to rise out of being indebted to the company? The only place you could shop was the company store with company script? If you disagreed with having to work 16 hour days and watching your son go to work at age 12, the company would send armed men into your home and evict you, since you didn't own any of it but were intead renting from the company?

I understand your comments about sometimes things go too far. Its just downright sad that drying agent for stereo equipment has to have printed on it "DO NOT EAT." I mean, seriously....that's just sad. I also understand that there are negative repercussions for every regulation that is imposed. However, as you said, what works on paper only works on paper. In reality, paper plans need to be fine tuned, tweaked, and amended to get the best possible solution. But in these types of cases one must weigh the potential benefits and shortcomings of every regulation.

I absolutely agree with you that both sides need to admit their shortcomings and failures and work together to get the best possible solutions. Hiding behind their propaganda, as you put it, does indeed do nothing. However, to bring this back to our current political spectrum, would you prefer to have a president who believes wholeheartedly in partisan and heavy handed politics or one who can go across the aisle to produce collaborative results?

Clinton, despite his social ineptitude, was an expert in getting compromised results from both Democrats and Republicans. What resulted was a joint effort of both parties to produce nearly a decade of unheard of prosperity. Bush, on the other hand, chooses to cram policy through without any assistance of both sides. The country is more divided than it has been in 4 decades. What is resulting is anger, hostility, failed economics, and a country that is reeling.

Now, for those of you who state that they would rather chose a known evil to an unknown one, I would ask you this. If you could do something to rid yourself of a known evil, isn't it your obligation to do such? Isn't it your obligation to vote against Bush?


my post was not meant to be taken seriously. it was a sarcastic remark to the propaganda that started this thread. I agree that going back to the "robber barons" is not the most positive of moves, but that is not what this thread is about. the thread is about how "liberals" supposedly did all these great things, and "conservatives" are the root of all evil. my post was pointing out that those so called improvements do have repercussions, something which was not mentioned in the first post.

and how do you know that we would go back to the days of robber barons (which can be equated with a governement owning everything.) and not something that could actually spawn positive reforms? Look at the computer industry? I am not refering to the huge microsoft/apple debate. there is a lot that could be said about that, but i am refering to companies that make the computers themselves. compared to other industries, the computer indistry has comparitivly been left alone by the "regulations" because of this, there are literally thousands of companies that will build a computer for you, all at differing price levels. These computers also vary in quality, but an informed buyer (informed not by some label, but by reading up on companies through self research) can choose the quality from the trash. Because of this competition, prices have been driven down for computers, and innovations are moving faster than ever. Tell me, if BIll Gates, Steve Jobs, IBM, or Xerox had to fill our thousands of pages of data stating how every improvement met certain regulations (some of them archaic) how fast do you think the improvements would be provided?

actually, I would prefer to have a canidate that did not come from either the republican or Democratic parties. both sides are so similar, even their differences are just polar opposites, and this similar in their totally difference. there is a book by CS Friedman called in conquest born. in it, there are two galactic civilizations, with two totally different and radical ideas on how to run an empire. However, to the common man of these nations, both sides are essentially the same. that is what our political parties have become. Choice is not merely a Binary event, but a multitude of choices. you do not have to either be totally for something, or totally against it (as party platforms would lead you to believe) there is a lot of middle ground. I do not care for bush, nor do I care for Kerry. I will not vote for one just because I dislike the other. to do so invites dictatorship in my opinion.

I am not Republican, nor am I democrat. i would not even call myself conservative or liberal, because I disagree with both sides. But that does not make me a centrist. www.lp.org

hitlers party was socialist


....irrelevat, isnt it?
He said that America was founded by people who later came to be known as Republicans (i.e. most of there views were shared by modern-day Republicans), and you came back with...... "hitlers party was socialist". I.... don't quite get it. Is it a desperate attempt to align Republicans with National Socialists (i.e. Nazis), like every other liberal has done in every other thread, or is it trying to make a point that, since conservatives founded America, Hitler's Party was Socialist? Or is it just.... irrelevant?

Now, for those of you who state that they would rather chose a known evil to an unknown one, I would ask you this. If you could do something to rid yourself of a known evil, isn't it your obligation to do such? Isn't it your obligation to vote against Bush?

Holy crap! *cough*hijack*cough* Congratulations, asshole. You've managed to slip a generic election comment into an otherwise Bush/Kerryless debate. Its guys like you that turn threads like, "So, green or purple, which color's better?" into full-fledged electoral debates.

Was America founded as a Republic? Yes.
By republicans? Yes.

Therefore there is a base to my argument.
By republicans not Republicans. American founding fathers, for the time, were massivly liberal, wanting as they did free speech, democracy, religious expression and the like.

indeed. if "Joe Democrat" is black then he is forced to thank (GASP) a Republican for the fact that he is not legally a piece of property.

this partisan crap is annoying. neither liberals nor conservatives have it entirely right, so get over yourselves.
Flaw: Democrat was not mentioned, only "liberal". I would categorise freeing slaves as a liberal (rather than a conservative) act, so his support would go to liberals, rather than to Republicans (Most Republicans today being nothing close to liberal)

YOu missed the best part of Joe's day!
where he gets shot on the street by a mugger because some conservative fought so hard to maintain the right to bear arms!

Actually, it'd go more like this:

YOu missed the best part of Joe's day!
where he gets shot on the street by a mugger for not exercising his right to bear arms that some conservative fought so hard to maintain.

Actually, it'd go more like this:

You missed the best part of Joe's day!
Where he shoots a mugger and is killed in return because they are both exercising their right to bear arms that some conservative fought so hard to maintain.

A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - July - 2004


Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a
deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him
considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.


Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a
worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's
deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect
Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before
the Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark).

He is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government
liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

This implys that all republicans are conservatives. That's not true. Many are moderates.

Be honest, if liberals had tried to found America, they would have got off the boat, apolygised to the Indians and gone home.
I'm pretty sure that America's founding fathers were what would be called "Libertarians" in America now.

I'm pretty sure that America's founding fathers were what would be called "Libertarians" in America now.

nah. they were classical liberals and slave holding conservatives and monarchists and proto-socialists, etc. in other words they were a large and varied group often at odds with each other over fundamental ideas.

Yes, Spoffin is right. When we say America is a republic, that means that its system of government is one of representative democracy (where citizens elect the leaders who set the government's policy). (I won't go into why it was founded this way, but read the federalist papers if you're interested.)

Now, the Republican Party was not founded until shortly before Civil War, as a strongly anti-slavery party. Its famous Abe Lincoln picked up the presidency in 1860, after a four-way vote split between his Republican Party, the pro-slavery Southern Democratic Party, an unsure Northern Democratic Party, and the Constitutional Union Party (the remnants of the Whigs who picked up some border states like Missouri and Kentucky by having no position on slavery at all).

Now, it is worth noting that the Democratic Party changed radically under FDR, creating what is known as the New Deal coalition, which has historically been the foundation of the Democratic Party since the Depression. Also, the Democrats put a civil-rights plank in their platform in 1948. Curiously, while the "solid South" used to vote almost overwhelmingly Democratic, it is now considered safe Republican territory.

Hope you've been enlightened......

YOu missed the best part of Joe's day!
where he gets shot on the street by a mugger because some conservative fought so hard to maintain the right to bear arms!

Hold on, let me add that:

On the walk to the subway, a man who liberals did not teach self-reliance pulled a gun on Joe. Joe pulled out his AR-15A1 equipped with a folding stock and flash suppressor and went postal on that foo', which was legal due to the efforts of conservative leaders to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, Spoffin is right. When we say America is a republic, that means that its system of government is one of representative democracy (where citizens elect the leaders who set the government's policy). (I won't go into why it was founded this way, but read the federalist papers if you're interested.)

Now, the Republican Party was not founded until shortly before Civil War, as a strongly anti-slavery party. Its famous Abe Lincoln picked up the presidency in 1860, after a four-way vote split between his Republican Party, the pro-slavery Southern Democratic Party, an unsure Northern Democratic Party, and the Constitutional Union Party (the remnants of the Whigs who picked up some border states like Missouri and Kentucky by having no position on slavery at all).

Now, it is worth noting that the Democratic Party changed radically under FDR, creating what is known as the New Deal coalition, which has historically been the foundation of the Democratic Party since the Depression. Also, the Democrats put a civil-rights plank in their platform in 1948. Curiously, while the "solid South" used to vote almost overwhelmingly Democratic, it is now considered safe Republican territory.

Hope you've been enlightened......
I have been. I would like to point out that republicans are not for republics and democrats are not for democracies in they're definitions. The similarities in the words is just a weird coincedence.

About the whole Joe and the Mugger thing, the second ammenment clearly states that gun ownership is needed for a well regulated militia. In these days we have the best millitary in the world, so a militia, and therefore citizen gun ownership, is not needed. My interpretation is that the second ammendment only covers militias and not private gun owners. I am not debating whether or not gun ownership is bad, I'm just saying it isn't protected by the constitution.

Also, the Democrats put a civil-rights plank in their platform in 1948. Curiously, while the "solid South" used to vote almost overwhelmingly Democratic, it is now considered safe Republican territory.

it should also be noted that these two facts are rather directly related - though the final break took a while to manifest itself.

Hold on, let me add that:

On the walk to the subway, a man who liberals did not teach self-reliance pulled a gun on Joe. Joe pulled out his AR-15A1 equipped with a folding stock and flash suppressor and went postal on that foo', which was legal due to the efforts of conservative leaders to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

But he is arrested due to the ban on semi-assault and assault weapons.
I mught be wrong but that sounds like a assualt-type weaponry.

middle class republicans are class traitors with low self esteem

middle class republicans are class traitors with low self esteem


what the hell exactly is a "Class Traitor"?

what the hell exactly is a "Class Traitor"?
middle class and poor people who vote against their self insterests by voting for republicans who hate them

so you think all Republicans hate everybody but the rich?

That's very interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that the founders of America were Republicans. I'm not saying that they would support Bush, or his party, which just happens to be known as the Republican party.

Not all of them were. For example, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe were Democrats.

so you think all Republicans hate everybody but the rich?
no--just the leaders of this parasitical party feel this way-the rest are deluded fools

hmmmm I see

Not all of them were. For example, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe were Democrats.
also in the 1800s the republicans were the LIBERALS

Hold on, let me add that:

On the walk to the subway, a man who liberals did not teach self-reliance pulled a gun on Joe. Joe pulled out his AR-15A1 equipped with a folding stock and flash suppressor and went postal on that foo', which was legal due to the efforts of conservative leaders to protect the right to keep and bear arms.


Well, since statistics state that one is several times more likely to be involved in gun accident (look it up) than to successfully defend oneself, then it might go like this.

Joe hears the sounds of breaking glass. In a cold sweat, he picks up his dangerously loaded and unlocked-up gun. Since conservatives do not propose any gun training or a waiting period, Joe is sadly unqualified to use the gun. Joe stalks downstairs as silently as possible towards where he heard the suspicious sounds. As he nears the front door, he sees a large shadow looming at him. There is a low pitched sound that seems manacing to Joe, and Joe opens fire. He flcks the light on, only to see his daughter and her boyfriend slumped on the ground in a pool of blood, because Joe has just blown a sizable hole in their heads. The sound of breaking glass came from a glass knocked off the table as the two teenagers were making out.

Overcome with grief, Joe runs out into the night. A mugger, attracted to the sounds of Joes wailing, pulls a weapon out himself. In the ensuing firefight, Joe's bullets go through the wall of a neighbor's home, killing a baby in it's crib. A stray bullet from the mugger's gun finds it's way into the spinal column of a promising young highschool football player, working out in his garage.

In utter dispair, Joe turns his gun on himself.

And the argument that "If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns," is bogus. Murder is outlawed, so only criminals murder, right? Only criminals have car bombs too, I guess we better all have them.
Oh, and the argument, "we need guns so we can defend ourselves against government tyranny!" is stupid too. How well is your stupid handgun going to do against an M1 tank or an air strike? Yeah.

I personally don't mind some people have guns, but I think the process should be at least as difficult as getting a driver's license, and a WHOLE lot of training should be involved. Letting some bozo off the street get a gun is ludicrous, and causes more harm than good.
I also don't mind hunting, as long as you eat what you kill. Meat is yummy.

Joe hears the sounds of breaking glass. In a cold sweat, he picks up his dangerously loaded and unlocked-up gun. Since conservatives do not propose any gun training or a waiting period, Joe is sadly unqualified to use the gun. Joe stalks downstairs as silently as possible towards where he heard the suspicious sounds. As he nears the front door, he sees a large shadow looming at him. There is a low pitched sound that seems manacing to Joe, and Joe opens fire. He flcks the light on, only to see his daughter and her boyfriend slumped on the ground in a pool of blood, because Joe has just blown a sizable hole in their heads. The sound of breaking glass came from a glass knocked off the table as the two teenagers were making out.

Overcome with grief, Joe runs out into the night. A mugger, attracted to the sounds of Joes wailing, pulls a weapon out himself. In the ensuing firefight, Joe's bullets go through the wall of a neighbor's home, killing a baby in it's crib. A stray bullet from the mugger's gun finds it's way into the spinal column of a promising young highschool football player, working out in his garage.

In utter dispair, Joe turns his gun on himself.

Hold on here!

Since states with CCL have less crime than those that don't, Joe is less likely to come across a mugger with a gun, because all the criminals would've migrated to more gun restricted states.

Holy crap! *cough*hijack*cough* Congratulations, asshole. You've managed to slip a generic election comment into an otherwise Bush/Kerryless debate. Its guys like you that turn threads like, "So, green or purple, which color's better?" into full-fledged electoral debates.

Aside from the asshole comment...um...thanks!

Since you don't know me from Adam, can I assume that you're an ass as well?

what the hell exactly is a "Class Traitor"?

Rich people that vote democratic.

Since states with CCL have less crime than those that don't
This argument ignores non-gun related factors, such as poverty.

ya, because the rape and pillaging of those people worked out so much better

Worked pretty well in my opinion.

Rich people that vote democratic.
no--those people are called the Responsible Rich

no--those people are called the Responsible Rich

lol. Yeah.

Latrell wakes up in the projects at 11:00am to watch BET. He sits on his ass until the new Lil John video has come on at least eight times. He has cable in his housing project because some liberal thought everyone should live with the same comforts. When the mail man delivers to his building he is the first one down. He can’t wait for his welfare and food stamps. Latrel gets food stamps because he is too lazy to work and some liberals thought everyone needs to eat, no matter how lazy they are. After Latrell opens his food stamps he steals everyone else in his housing project’s food stamps.

Latrell doesn’t bother with a morning shower because that would take the marijuana smell off his clothes and he would lose face with his brothas on the corner. Latrell dresses in the newest Sean John and FUBU, walks outside and takes a
deep pull off of his joint. The marijuana he smokes is high quality because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to legalize marijuana for medical purposes but didn’t put in a system to monitor how it is used.

He walks to the subway station to wait for a hard working middle class republican to come home from work. After he robs Joe the Republican while he is getting off the subway, he throws Joe’s emptied wallet off into a trash can. He walks slowly away. Someone called the transit police to the scene. The policeman cannot search Latrell for a weapon because it would be “racial profiling.” Liberals fought against “racial profiling.”

Latrell goes to the corner store and buys a 40oz. of Old English, or Colt 45, whichever is on sale and a pack of Newports. Latrell is able to pay for this with his stolen food stamps because the liberals who made the food stamp system did not make any way to monitor it. Latrell then goes out and sells goes to the methadone clinic for free. Some liberal thought it would be a good idea if every fiend could get his fix.

Latrell goes to his baby’s momma’s place for a booty call. Shaquiesha wants to get pregnant again so her check from the government will get bigger. Some liberal thought that would be a good idea also. Shaquiesha doesn’t have to work or even worry about feeding her 6 different children from 5 different fathers because they get free lunch and breakfast from school. That leaves Shaquiesha with more money for herself. Some liberals thought this would be a good idea, but did not put in a system to monitor how Joe-Middleclass-Republican’s tax dollars are spent.

Even though Latrell could use one of the free condoms from the clinic, Shaquiesha doesn’t want him too. 9 months later Shaquiesha gets free treatment at a hospital and starting to draw additional cash from the government. Some liberals thought that even the lowest pieces of shit should get free medical treatment.

After Latrell gets his booty call from Shaquiesha, he goes and slangs rocks throughout the projects. Latrell doesn’t have shit to worry about because liberals have redirected funding from the local police force to pay for welfare programs like the ones Latrell abuses everyday. Latrell continues feeding the addicts drugs, and they continue to do anything to pay for their fix. More average-Joe-middle-class-Republicans get robbed getting off the subway. The liberals see it as a “problem with society” and refuse to treat the problem correctly. More and more money is taken away from the War on Drugs and diverted to “social justice programs.”

Latrell loves his life. He doesn’t have to do shit and he lives an easier life with less worries than average-Joe-Middle-class republicans.

He turns on a Ludacris CD, the chorus keeps saying “my Uzi’s got a drum roll like rat tat tat”. Liberals thought it would be a good idea to let people talk about shooting illegal weapons and doing illegal drugs. Latrell then pulls out his Uzi and does a drive by on some other guy’s crib that has been seeing Shaquiesha. Again, when the police car shows up 15 minutes later (because some liberal thought that police funding should be replaced by an increase in Medicaid) he cannot be pulled over because it would be “racial profiling.” And even though statistically the police officer thinks Latrell did this drive by, the liberals at the ACLU would get the case dismissed, so it’s not even worth pulling him over.

Latrell loves the liberal politicians. Latrell can continue doing nothing for the rest of his life except voting for liberal politicians on election-day and he will be happy with his life.

YOu missed the best part of Joe's day!
where he gets shot on the street by a mugger because some conservative fought so hard to maintain the right to bear arms!

well if joe was smart he would have a gun with him if hes walking around somplace where he could get mugged.

Latrell wakes up in the projects at 11:00am to watch BET. He sits on his ass until the new Lil John video has come on at least eight times. He has cable in his housing project because some liberal thought everyone should live with the same comforts. When the mail man delivers to his building he is the first one down. He can’t wait for his welfare and food stamps. Latrel gets food stamps because he is too lazy to work and some liberals thought everyone needs to eat, no matter how lazy they are. After Latrell opens his food stamps he steals everyone else in his housing project’s food stamps.

Latrell doesn’t bother with a morning shower because that would take the marijuana smell off his clothes and he would lose face with his brothas on the corner. Latrell dresses in the newest Sean John and FUBU, walks outside and takes a
deep pull off of his joint. The marijuana he smokes is high quality because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to legalize marijuana for medical purposes but didn’t put in a system to monitor how it is used.

He walks to the subway station to wait for a hard working middle class republican to come home from work. After he robs Joe the Republican while he is getting off the subway, he throws Joe’s emptied wallet off into a trash can. He walks slowly away. Someone called the transit police to the scene. The policeman cannot search Latrell for a weapon because it would be “racial profiling.” Liberals fought against “racial profiling.”

Latrell goes to the corner store and buys a 40oz. of Old English, or Colt 45, whichever is on sale and a pack of Newports. Latrell is able to pay for this with his stolen food stamps because the liberals who made the food stamp system did not make any way to monitor it. Latrell then goes out and sells goes to the methadone clinic for free. Some liberal thought it would be a good idea if every fiend could get his fix.

Latrell goes to his baby’s momma’s place for a booty call. Shaquiesha wants to get pregnant again so her check from the government will get bigger. Some liberal thought that would be a good idea also. Shaquiesha doesn’t have to work or even worry about feeding her 6 different children from 5 different fathers because they get free lunch and breakfast from school. That leaves Shaquiesha with more money for herself. Some liberals thought this would be a good idea, but did not put in a system to monitor how Joe-Middleclass-Republican’s tax dollars are spent.

Even though Latrell could use one of the free condoms from the clinic, Shaquiesha doesn’t want him too. 9 months later Shaquiesha gets free treatment at a hospital and starting to draw additional cash from the government. Some liberals thought that even the lowest pieces of shit should get free medical treatment.

After Latrell gets his booty call from Shaquiesha, he goes and slangs rocks throughout the projects. Latrell doesn’t have shit to worry about because liberals have redirected funding from the local police force to pay for welfare programs like the ones Latrell abuses everyday. Latrell continues feeding the addicts drugs, and they continue to do anything to pay for their fix. More average-Joe-middle-class-Republicans get robbed getting off the subway. The liberals see it as a “problem with society” and refuse to treat the problem correctly. More and more money is taken away from the War on Drugs and diverted to “social justice programs.”

Latrell loves his life. He doesn’t have to do shit and he lives an easier life with less worries than average-Joe-Middle-class republicans.

He turns on a Ludacris CD, the chorus keeps saying “my Uzi’s got a drum roll like rat tat tat”. Liberals thought it would be a good idea to let people talk about shooting illegal weapons and doing illegal drugs. Latrell then pulls out his Uzi and does a drive by on some other guy’s crib that has been seeing Shaquiesha. Again, when the police car shows up 15 minutes later (because some liberal thought that police funding should be replaced by an increase in Medicaid) he cannot be pulled over because it would be “racial profiling.” And even though statistically the police officer thinks Latrell did this drive by, the liberals at the ACLU would get the case dismissed, so it’s not even worth pulling him over.

Latrell loves the liberal politicians. Latrell can continue doing nothing for the rest of his life except voting for liberal politicians on election-day and he will be happy with his life.
Just like conservative foreign policys have created all the terrorists we have in the world today, conservatives unconstitutional war on drugs have caused an epidemic of drug violence on our streets as well since drug gangs wouldnt exist if people can legally buy drugs they have a human right to at their local stores

Just like conservative foreign policys have created all the terrorists we have in the world today, conservatives unconstitutional war on drugs have caused an epidemic of drug violence on our streets as well since drug gangs wouldnt exist if people can legally buy drugs they have a human right to at their local stores

Ya so people could legally become drug addicts and blow all there money on it legally and more people would be robbed becuase the drug addicts need the money for their now legal drugs...wow thats such a great idea.

Ya so people could legally become drug addicts and blow all there money on it legally and more people would be robbed becuase the drug addicts need the money for their now legal drugs...wow thats such a great idea.

Ever heard of cigarrettes or alcohol? I don't see you pushing to ban THEM.

Ya so people could legally become drug addicts and blow all there money on it legally and more people would be robbed becuase the drug addicts need the money for their now legal drugs...wow thats such a great idea.
when drugs people legal billions of dollars can be saved as a result and some of that money can actually be used to TREAT addicts instead of violating their human rightes and burdening taxpayers by jailing them since treating people is cheaper then torturing them

Ever heard of cigarrettes or alcohol? I don't see you pushing to ban THEM.

achlohal is actually good for you until you drink to much as for tobacco Im all for a ban on those.

Man, I must say that I am thankful that the all enlightened liberals take credit for everything good in the world but will never take the blame for the bad. Remind me later to email Al Gore and thank him for creating the internet.

achlohal is actually good for you until you drink to much as for tobacco Im all for a ban on those.
you dont have a right to ban things just cause you dont like or use them

achlohal is actually good for you until you drink to much as for tobacco Im all for a ban on those.
So is weed ;-) Makes you very happy.

The point is people abuse both of those and they are worse than weed when abused.

Man, I must say that I am thankful that the all enlightened liberals take credit for everything good in the world but will never take the blame for the bad. Remind me later to email Al Gore and thank him for creating the internet.
at least the lies of democrats dont kill people the way the lies of republicans do-(america misses the Clinton surplus)

Man, I must say that I am thankful that the all enlightened liberals take credit for everything good in the world but will never take the blame for the bad. Remind me later to email Al Gore and thank him for creating the internet.

Specifics on the bad?

you dont have a right to ban things just cause you dont like or use them


So I take it you like cancer sticks? You enjoy hearing how every one who uses ciggerates usually die from it if not killed by something else first? I don't just dislike I hate them last thing i wanna do is die from second hand smoke.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day!

Specifics on the bad?

Supporting 1st degree baby slaughter is one...

So I take it you like cancer sticks? You enjoy hearing how every one who uses ciggerates usually die from it if not killed by something else first? I don't just dislike I hate them last thing i wanna do is die from second hand smoke.
I hate them but people still have a right to smoke just like they have a right to be stupid. Second hand smoke is a nonissue now since most places already ban smoking in enclosed places.

Supporting 1st degree baby slaughter is one...
but a fetus isnt a baby

indeed. if "Joe Democrat" is black then he is forced to thank (GASP) a Republican for the fact that he is not legally a piece of property.

this partisan crap is annoying. neither liberals nor conservatives have it entirely right, so get over yourselves.
Hmmm, it seems to this old broad that some "moderates" here have no sense of humor. Besides, those Republicans that blacks have to thank are all campaigning vigorously throughout the South for "state's rights" and (GASP) the Confederate flag, so maybe our friend who started this thread has something right, after all. And, yes, I am a Democrat, but I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat.

Some liberals thought that even the lowest pieces of shit should get free medical treatment.


Umm, to be brutally honest there, bucko, Free Medical Treatment is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it.

but a fetus isnt a baby

How can it not be a baby? What else would be growing in a whomb? Are you saying that people who arent fully developed not human beings?

Hmmm, it seems to this old broad that some "moderates" here have no sense of humor. Besides, those Republicans that blacks have to thank are all campaigning vigorously throughout the South for "state's rights" and (GASP) the Confederate flag, so maybe our friend who started this thread has something right, after all. And, yes, I am a Democrat, but I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat.
Im a dem who likes McCain too except that McCains actions in recent days endorsing Bush is pretty vile--thats taking party loyalty a little too far I think

How can it not be a baby? What else would be growing in a whomb? Are you saying that people who arent fully developed not human beings?
its a pre-baby--but unlike republicans who only support life when its in the womb I support all life thats outside of the womb

How can it not be a baby? What else would be growing in a whomb? Are you saying that people who arent fully developed not human beings?


It's all subjective to each person's own ideals and morals. Are you for an all-out ban on abortion?

its a pre-baby--but unlike republicans who only support life when its in the womb I support all life thats outside of the womb
Hahaha...pwned.
:mp5:

Umm, to be brutally honest there, bucko, Free Medical Treatment is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it.


Ya its nice...until the quality drops..lines are a mile long and the doctor cares less what perscription you get as long as he can get ya out of his office so he can do the same to a dozen other people.

1. He has cable in his housing project because some liberal thought everyone should live with the same comforts.

2. some liberals thought everyone needs to eat

3. He walks to the subway station to wait for a hard working middle class republican to come home from work.

4. The policeman cannot search Latrell for a weapon because it would be “racial profiling.” Liberals fought against “racial profiling.”

5. Shaquiesha wants to get pregnant again so her check from the government will get bigger.

6. Some liberals thought that even the lowest pieces of shit should get free medical treatment.

7. More and more money is taken away from the War on Drugs and diverted to “social justice programs.”

8. Liberals thought it would be a good idea to let people talk about shooting illegal weapons and doing illegal drugs.

9. the liberals at the ACLU would get the case dismissed

10. Latrell can continue doing nothing for the rest of his life except voting for liberal politicians on election-day and he will be happy with his life.
1. The government pays for cable TV?

2. No shit, genius.

3. "Look, mofo, a Republican! Let's get him!!!"

4. Wow, i didn't realise that black people were immune from arrest.

5. OK this is ridiculous. No one gets pregnant for just a few dollars.

6. Uh, yeah. Otherwise your citizens die.

7. Rightys complain about programs that don't work?

8. It's called free speech, and thanks to the conservatives, Letrell has a gun.

9. The ACLU doesn't have a political agenda.

10. Guys like Latrell don't vote.

Hahaha...pwned.
:mp5:
LoL ^5

It's all subjective to each person's own ideals and morals. Are you for an all-out ban on abortion?


When its used for birth control yes when its used to save the mothers life then no but most the people who do get abortions couldn't keep their pants on and wanted to play the game but not be willing to loose.

Ya its nice...until the quality drops..lines are a mile long and the doctor cares less what perscription you get as long as he can get ya out of his office so he can do the same to a dozen other people.
so I guess having 65 million people who cant afford having ANY insurance at all and drug prices marked up 300 times their actual worth and people losing all their life savings when they get sick is a better alternative?

Well, I enjoyed the article. Nice bit of humor to add to my already annoyingly heavy work day.

When its used for birth control yes when its used to save the mothers life then no but most the people who do get abortions couldn't keep their pants on and wanted to play the game but not be willing to loose.
thats why we need to have RU486 to be widely distributed to limit the number of abortions but conservatives oppose that too cause they hate sex

Umm, to be brutally honest there, bucko, Free Medical Treatment is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it.

Why should I have to pay for my own medical insurance out of my pocket from a commercial healthcare provided (personally, I have the Government's Employee's Blue Cross Blue Shield plan along with TriCare offered through the military) and have my tax money that is supposed to go to keeping schools, roads, and the national defense up to standard, be diverted to pay for some one who is too lazy to get a fucking job?

Why should I have to support my own medical issues along with someone else who contributed nothing to society?

Tell me why my?

Ya its nice...until the quality drops..lines are a mile long and the doctor cares less what perscription you get as long as he can get ya out of his office so he can do the same to a dozen other people.

LOL, NHS'ed!
Was rather hoping nobody would call me on that there.


Why should I have to support my own medical issues along with someone else who contributed nothing to society?


Because a community, the component parts of society, is dependant on caring for each other. Your costs for medical care would be reduced to negligible (though taxes increased, most likely) under a free healthcare system. I don't think the discrepancy would be too huge either.

feel free to tear the above to shreds, btw, its just a pinko commie liberal microbiologist's thoughts on the matter.

its a pre-baby--but unlike republicans who only support life when its in the womb I support all life thats outside of the womb
Haha! I'm better than you both. I'm an anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-guns socialist. I value all life, in or out of womb!

pwnified

1. The government pays for cable TV?The government does not monitor to see if the money is being used for 22 inch Spinners or Gerber baby food. If Latrell spends my tax money on 800 channels of digital cable he can, if he needs it or not.

2. No shit, genius.DO you know how I eat? I have a job, I make money. I go to the grocery store and buy food and then I cook it.

3. "Look, mofo, a Republican! Let's get him!!!" yeah mofo

4. Wow, i didn't realise that black people were immune from arrest. Where did I say Latrell is black? I guess you are guilty of racial profiling.

5. OK this is ridiculous. No one gets pregnant for just a few dollars. Uh yes they do. Take a visit to the welfare offices in Greenwood, Cleveland, or Greenville Mississippi and then tell me I am making this shit up.

6. Uh, yeah. Otherwise your citizens die.
Yeah, citizens who are not contributing any revenue to the government. The less freeloaders there are off the government, the more money can be spent on education, defense, commerce, and scientific research.
7. Rightys complain about programs that don't work?I am not a righty, but yes there are rightys who can see that the red-tapped beurocracy welfare state created by FDR is broken.

8. It's called free speech, and thanks to the conservatives, Letrell has a gun.Free speach, okay... Go fuck yourself. And Uzi's are illegal. Thanks to liberal politicians diverting money from law enforcement to welfare programs, there is no one to take away Latrell's Uzi.
9. The ACLU doesn't have a political agenda.
yeah, okay... If you really think so....
10. Guys like Latrell don't vote.
Care to back that up with stats for me?

Because a community, the component parts of society, is dependant on caring for each other. Your costs for medical care would be reduced to negligible (though taxes increased, most likely) under a free healthcare system. I don't think the discrepancy would be too huge either.

feel free to tear the above to shreds, btw, its just a pinko commie liberal microbiologist's thoughts on the matter.
yes, thats why if I feel like helping out people who are not as well off as me, I will give a donation to my church, or to some other charity I can trust, not the government's way of charity where people just get handouts.

If I don't feel like helping them out, I will give the money back to my favorite person in the world... myself.

i think the funniest part of the thread is that he is refering to the democratic party as liberals
Exactly!!!!

yes, thats why if I feel like helping out people who are not as well off as me, I will give a donation to my church, or to some other charity I can trust, not the government's way of charity where people just get handouts.

If I don't feel like helping them out, I will give the money to my favorite person... myslef.

Fair enough, do as you will, but i don't think free healthcare is a handout thing, it is instead, well paid doctors and nurses and such who don't really give a damn wether their patient has insurance before operation.

Why should I have to pay for my own medical insurance out of my pocket from a commercial healthcare provided (personally, I have the Government's Employee's Blue Cross Blue Shield plan along with TriCare offered through the military) and have my tax money that is supposed to go to keeping schools, roads, and the national defense up to standard, be diverted to pay for some one who is too lazy to get a fucking job?

Why should I have to support my own medical issues along with someone else who contributed nothing to society?

Tell me why my?
because your paying more when you deny giving people affordable health care in the long run

yes, thats why if I feel like helping out people who are not as well off as me, I will give a donation to my church, or to some other charity I can trust, not the government's way of charity where people just get handouts.

If I don't feel like helping them out, I will give the money back to my favorite person in the world... myself.
as if some private charity can give 65 million people affordable health care :rolleyes: its also funny how you dont mind giving handouts to greedy price gouging drug companies but you only oppose giving the deserving any aid (typical republican class bigotry)
*its also funny how the republicans in congress who lead you around by your nose also award themselves socialized meds while they deny the same plans for the people--if socialized meds doesnt work then why does it magically work for republican hypocrites in congress?

as if some private charity can give 65 million people affordable health care :rolleyes: its also funny how you dont mind giving handouts to greedy price gouging drug companies but you only oppose giving the deserving any aid (typical republican class bigotry)

I dont like handouts for anyone, especially drug companies. Let them earn their keep, the same way Latrell should.

Where did I say Latrell is black? I guess you are guilty of racial profiling.

How many white people are named Latrell and Shaquiesa? You obviously intentionally chose "urban/black" sounding names. Oh, and if you're so anti-drugs, then why do you know the lyrics to a Lude song? (unless you made em up, i don't listen to rap, so i don't really know)

I dont like handouts for anyone, especially drug companies. Let them earn their keep, the same way Latrell should.
Ok thats consistent-I agree BOTH should

oh, and also, New Aub- the reason why your taxes support lazy people is so that they may also support the many poor people that aren't lazy (esp. immigrants) Ever heard of acts of kindness? In the end this pays off, because it prevents poor people from uprising violently against a gov. and a system that they feel doesn't care about them, only the rich voters. If you lived in a ghetto and were clean, but your public school sucked so you couldn't get a good enough education to get a well paying job and you got no welfare, you would basically feel that the gov. is worthless. Most poor people feel this way, and therefore liberals that propose higher tax rates for the wealthy are simply trying to partially alleviate the burden of poverty that affects and increasing number of Americans.

How many white people are named Latrell and Shaquiesa? You obviously intentionally chose "urban/black" sounding names. Oh, and if you're so anti-drugs, then why do you know the lyrics to a Lude song? (unless you made em up, i don't listen to rap, so i don't really know)

I was trying to give the impression of an urban name. There are whites, hispanics, asians, and blacks that live in the hood. Isnt Eminem from Detriot?

I am anti-drugs. However, my old room mate used to playt that fucking song to death, so after about 200 times of overhearing that song played, I kinda remembered some of the lyrics. And the song I was refering to was "We Got" by Ludacris.

ok, that works. Cna anyone explain exactly how the distribution of food stamps occurs?

oh, and also, New Aub- the reason why your taxes support lazy people is so that they may also support the many poor people that aren't lazy (esp. immigrants) Ever heard of acts of kindness? In the end this pays off, because it prevents poor people from uprising violently against a gov. and a system that they feel doesn't care about them, only the rich voters.
If people have shitty jobs that do not make it fiscally able for them to have commercial healthcare, I have no problem with government assistance for Medicaid. however, in its current form, there is no way to distinguish between the people who sit on their ass and do not get a job (yes there are always jobs available no matter how shitty they are, the world needs garbage men and ditchdiggers just as much as it needs rocket scientists) and the people who actually have those lowpaying shitty jobs. In the military, you gain promotion points, and in some cases punnished if you do not, if you take night classes, coorespondence classes, or online classes. Those people that are making attempts to improve their lives, and therefore improve their contribution to society should get assistance from the government. Those how just live off the gov't, should be cut off.
If you lived in a ghetto and were clean, but your public school sucked so you couldn't get a good enough education to get a well paying job and you got no welfare, you would basically feel that the gov. is worthless. Most poor people feel this way, and therefore liberals that propose higher tax rates for the wealthy are simply trying to partially alleviate the burden of poverty that affects and increasing number of Americans. Thats why I believe there should be a reform of the education system. Education, not affirmative action or govt handouts, will end poverty close the gap between the rich and poor.

ok, that works. Cna anyone explain exactly how the distribution of food stamps occurs?

http://oahu-ces.hawaii.edu/food_stamps/progfacts.htm

as if some private charity can give 65 million people affordable health care :rolleyes: its also funny how you dont mind giving handouts to greedy price gouging drug companies but you only oppose giving the deserving any aid (typical republican class bigotry)
*its also funny how the republicans in congress who lead you around by your nose also award themselves socialized meds while they deny the same plans for the people--if socialized meds doesnt work then why does it magically work for republican hypocrites in congress?
I appreciate the making a distinction between Republican and Conservative.
The Republican Party has long been far from fiscal conservatives.
and the point of Congress having wicked Health Care compared to everyone else is excellent, I work a hell of a lot harder then any Congressmen, and I do more for this country then any congressmen(If I have a heart attack at work a lot of people will die with me in all liklyhood.) and if I want Healthcare for my family I have to pay out nearly 100$ out of every check, you try having kids and a bluecollar job and sending 100$ out of every check into the ether.
DOwnsize the government(you must if cut taxes, you hear me BUsh you must reduce spending to cut taxes!!!) .
Withdraw from Iraq, increase the standing army, make the War on Terror Assymetrical, Socialize 16 years of school, allow medicare/mediacaid to negotiate for drug prices. Take the 500,000,000 dollars being spent every three days to fund the war in IRaq(not the war on terror) to fund free mergency rooms, take the 18 billion wasted on the War on Drugs to begin a socialised preventative medicine program.
Reduce Congressional salaries by half(including their fat pensions) and use that money to begin a national anti-obesity program.
Tax the drugs and regulate the drugs you are no longer WASTING tax dollars PRETENDING to fight and fund education/medicine anything this country needs to end this whole Dem/Rep thing, with Conservative Spending and PRogressive(Liberal) programs, and A dismantaling of the over grown governemnt we could be Great again, not great now, but great again.
The wealthiest nation in the world and I cant afford to take my kids to the dentist without not paying a bill for the month.

Thats why I believe there should be a reform of the education system. Education, not affirmative action or govt handouts, will end poverty close the gap between the rich and poor.

Woot! I disagree with almost everything else you've said, but you hit this one right on!

I appreciate the making a distinction between Republican and Conservative.
The Republican Party has long been far from fiscal conservatives.
and the point of Congress having wicked Health Care compared to everyone else is excellent, I work a hell of a lot harder then any Congressmen, and I do more for this country then any congressmen(If I have a heart attack at work a lot of people will die with me in all liklyhood.) and if I want Healthcare for my family I have to pay out nearly 100$ out of every check, you try having kids and a bluecollar job and sending 100$ out of every check into the ether.
DOwnsize the government(you must if cut taxes, you hear me BUsh you must reduce spending to cut taxes!!!) .
Withdraw from Iraq, increase the standing army, make the War on Terror Assymetrical, Socialize 16 years of school, allow medicare/mediacaid to negotiate for drug prices. Take the 500,000,000 dollars being spent every three days to fund the war in IRaq(not the war on terror) to fund free mergency rooms, take the 18 billion wasted on the War on Drugs to begin a socialised preventative medicine program.
Reduce Congressional salaries by half(including their fat pensions) and use that money to begin a national anti-obesity program.
Tax the drugs and regulate the drugs you are no longer WASTING tax dollars PRETENDING to fight and fund education/medicine anything this country needs to end this whole Dem/Rep thing, with Conservative Spending and PRogressive(Liberal) programs, and A dismantaling of the over grown governemnt we could be Great again, not great now, but great again.
The wealthiest nation in the world and I cant afford to take my kids to the dentist without not paying a bill for the month.

I betcha if we hired 10% of the qualified unemployed in an effort to audit government expenditures, they'd be able to pay their own salary several times over with the savings buried in government pork, gouging, redundancy, and outright fraud.


I believe small government is only acheived by fairness and vigilance, not cutting programs.

I appreciate the making a distinction between Republican and Conservative.
The Republican Party has long been far from fiscal conservatives.
and the point of Congress having wicked Health Care compared to everyone else is excellent, I work a hell of a lot harder then any Congressmen, and I do more for this country then any congressmen(If I have a heart attack at work a lot of people will die with me in all liklyhood.) and if I want Healthcare for my family I have to pay out nearly 100$ out of every check, you try having kids and a bluecollar job and sending 100$ out of every check into the ether.
DOwnsize the government(you must if cut taxes, you hear me BUsh you must reduce spending to cut taxes!!!) .
Withdraw from Iraq, increase the standing army, make the War on Terror Assymetrical, Socialize 16 years of school, allow medicare/mediacaid to negotiate for drug prices. Take the 500,000,000 dollars being spent every three days to fund the war in IRaq(not the war on terror) to fund free mergency rooms, take the 18 billion wasted on the War on Drugs to begin a socialised preventative medicine program.
Reduce Congressional salaries by half(including their fat pensions) and use that money to begin a national anti-obesity program.
Tax the drugs and regulate the drugs you are no longer WASTING tax dollars PRETENDING to fight and fund education/medicine anything this country needs to end this whole Dem/Rep thing, with Conservative Spending and PRogressive(Liberal) programs, and A dismantaling of the over grown governemnt we could be Great again, not great now, but great again.
The wealthiest nation in the world and I cant afford to take my kids to the dentist without not paying a bill for the month.

What is your political stance?

I appreciate the making a distinction between Republican and Conservative.
The Republican Party has long been far from fiscal conservatives.
and the point of Congress having wicked Health Care compared to everyone else is excellent, I work a hell of a lot harder then any Congressmen, and I do more for this country then any congressmen(If I have a heart attack at work a lot of people will die with me in all liklyhood.) and if I want Healthcare for my family I have to pay out nearly 100$ out of every check, you try having kids and a bluecollar job and sending 100$ out of every check into the ether.
DOwnsize the government(you must if cut taxes, you hear me BUsh you must reduce spending to cut taxes!!!) .
Withdraw from Iraq, increase the standing army, make the War on Terror Assymetrical, Socialize 16 years of school, allow medicare/mediacaid to negotiate for drug prices. Take the 500,000,000 dollars being spent every three days to fund the war in IRaq(not the war on terror) to fund free mergency rooms, take the 18 billion wasted on the War on Drugs to begin a socialised preventative medicine program.
Reduce Congressional salaries by half(including their fat pensions) and use that money to begin a national anti-obesity program.
Tax the drugs and regulate the drugs you are no longer WASTING tax dollars PRETENDING to fight and fund education/medicine anything this country needs to end this whole Dem/Rep thing, with Conservative Spending and PRogressive(Liberal) programs, and A dismantaling of the over grown governemnt we could be Great again, not great now, but great again.
The wealthiest nation in the world and I cant afford to take my kids to the dentist without not paying a bill for the month.you should be President with ideas like these

Those how just live off the gov't, should be cut off.

Thats why I believe there should be a reform of the education system. Education, not affirmative action or govt handouts, will end poverty close the gap between the rich and poor.
I agree. Those who are not willing, but able, to work for a living should not expect society's support.

Education badly needs ore government funding. In conjunction with effective social welfare programs it can close the wealth gap.

I agree. Those who are not willing, but able, to work for a living should not expect society's support.

Education badly needs ore government funding. In conjunction with effective social welfare programs it can close the wealth gap.
98% of all welfare recipients want to work
100% of all corporate welfare recipients dont work at all

I'm on Social Security for technically being mentally ill ( aren't we all?) and not being able to hold a Job. I usually vote republican and I feel like I'm voting to cut my own throat but don't have any choice because my moral beleifs make practically all democrats totally unaceptable for office.

DO you know how I eat? I have a job, I make money. I go to the grocery store and buy food and then I cook it.

Where did I say Latrell is black? I guess you are guilty of racial profiling.

Yeah, citizens who are not contributing any revenue to the government. The less freeloaders there are off the government, the more money can be spent on education, defense, commerce, and scientific research.

I am not a righty, but yes there are rightys who can see that the red-tapped beurocracy welfare state created by FDR is broken.

Free speach, okay... Go fuck yourself. And Uzi's are illegal. Thanks to liberal politicians diverting money from law enforcement to welfare programs, there is no one to take away Latrell's Uzi.

yeah, okay... If you really think so....

Care to back that up with stats for me?
I was pointing out the obvious fact that everyone needs to eat.

Letrell sounds pretty black. What's racial profiling? It isn't racism is it?

The "freeloader's" right to life is more important than money in the government coffers. I'm not saying that nothing should be done about their freeloading, but it is downright immoral to let them die when we could help them.

Well, at least you admit that FDR's programs were good originally.

Flame flame... if only guns were outlawed, all those police officers wouldn't be necessary.

I know the ACLU is a favourite target of conservatives. These types of conservatives are authoritarians who want to ban speech that offends them and incorporate their religion into the state. The fact that the ACLU is heavily critical of the current US gov't says more about the Bush admin than the ACLU. If they had liberal agenda, why would they defend Rush Limbaugh? If they're so anti-religious, why defend that girl's right to use Bible quotes?

No, I can't back it up with stats. I was going on stereotypes, just like you were.

98% of all welfare recipients want to work
100% of all corporate welfare recipients dont work at all
Correct. There is nothing wrong with receiving social welfare and being unable to find a job. It's just people who are living off society with no intention of ever working for theselves that annoy me.

I'm on Social Security for technically being mentally ill ( aren't we all?) and not being able to hold a Job. I usually vote republican and I feel like I'm voting to cut my own throat but don't have any choice because my moral beleifs make practically all democrats totally unaceptable for office.
well your mentally ill--so you have an excuse to vote republican

Correct. There is nothing wrong with receiving social welfare and being unable to find a job. It's just people who are living off society with no intention of ever working for theselves that annoy me.those leeches annoy me too--but they dont make up the majority of people on welfare the way conservatives want everyone to think and whenever welfare is discussed its never discussed in terms of corporate welfare which is the TRUE example of who the real welfare cheats are--thats because republicans are class bigots

It's not like I'm crazy, I just have some form of social anxiety disorder. Actually I'm not sure. when I was a kid they said I had ADD, then they said I had Bipolar, now my doctor thinks I have Aspergers. Personally I think there are only two types of people in the world: people who are being treated and people who aren't :D

Oh thats hilarious MKULTRA. See me laughing :rolleyes:

It's not like I'm crazy, I just have some form of social anxiety disorder. Actually I'm not sure. when I was a kid they said I had ADD, then they said I had Bipolar, now my doctor thinks I have Aspergers. Personally I think there are only two types of people in the world: people who are being treated and people who aren't :D

Asbergers typically makes people very, very, very, smart.

Oh thats hilarious MKULTRA. See me laughing :rolleyes:
I wasnt saying it to be offensive. Its a fact that more educated voters vote Democrat since republicans traditionally appeal to anti-intellectuals

Asbergers typically makes people very, very, very, smart.
well I guess that someone can still be very smart yet have very warped values at the same time then

I wasnt saying it to be offensive. Its a fact that more educated voters vote Democrat since republicans traditionally appeal to anti-intellectuals
Isn't it funny how a majority of people who have college degrees vote republican?

You consider my values "warped". Fine. But that is not an objective statement

Where did I say Latrell is black? I guess you are guilty of racial profiling.

You said that he was being racially profiled. Therefore, you obviously didn't mean he was a white guy and must be a member of some minority or other.

Uh yes they do. Take a visit to the welfare offices in Greenwood, Cleveland, or Greenville Mississippi and then tell me I am making this shit up.

How about taking a look at the welfare laws of today? There is no increase in payments for children that women have while on welfare. It's one of the more recent welfare reforms (and those more liberal than me are fighting it tooth and nail).

I am not a righty, but yes there are rightys who can see that the red-tapped beurocracy welfare state created by FDR is broken.

Just about everyone can see that welfare is broken. Some of us just think it should be fixed, rather than simply thrown in the trash.

Isn't it funny how a majority of people who have college degrees vote republican?

If this is true, then why do die-hard conservatives always yell and scream and whine about the so-called "liberal colleges"?

Isn't it funny how a majority of people who have college degrees vote republican?
quite funny, since that is not the case. here's just a few bits of evidence, i'll find more if necessary.

Asked whether their views were "warm" or "cool" toward the two parties, white women without college degrees were decisively favorable to the GOP, 49 percent "warm" and 27 percent "cool," while their assessment of the Democratic Party was less positive, 46 percent warm to 34 percent cool. For non-college white men, the differences were more dramatic: Their positive view of the Republican Party was 54 percent to 27 percent, and their assessment of the Democratic Party was negative: 38 percent to 41 percent. Over recent decades there has been a realignment of white, well-educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, scientists, academics), now one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies.

In 2000, the voters in 17 out of 25 of the nation's most affluent counties -- all with high percentages of people with advanced degrees -- cast majorities for Al Gore, sometimes by more than 70 percent.

on issues:

Exit polls by Voter News Service (VNS) from the 2000 election show a slight majority, 52 percent to 48 percent, of whites with high school diplomas or less believe most abortions should be illegal. But whites with college and post-graduate degrees believe most abortions should be legal by a resounding 63 percent to 37 percent. On gun control, less well-educated whites split evenly, while well-educated whites strongly support gun control, 66 percent to 34 percent.

quite funny, since that is not the case. here's just a few bits of evidence, i'll find more if necessary.

Asked whether their views were "warm" or "cool" toward the two parties, white women without college degrees were decisively favorable to the GOP, 49 percent "warm" and 27 percent "cool," while their assessment of the Democratic Party was less positive, 46 percent warm to 34 percent cool. For non-college white men, the differences were more dramatic: Their positive view of the Republican Party was 54 percent to 27 percent, and their assessment of the Democratic Party was negative: 38 percent to 41 percent. Over recent decades there has been a realignment of white, well-educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, scientists, academics), now one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies.

In 2000, the voters in 17 out of 25 of the nation's most affluent counties -- all with high percentages of people with advanced degrees -- cast majorities for Al Gore, sometimes by more than 70 percent.

on issues:

Exit polls by Voter News Service (VNS) from the 2000 election show a slight majority, 52 percent to 48 percent, of whites with high school diplomas or less believe most abortions should be illegal. But whites with college and post-graduate degrees believe most abortions should be legal by a resounding 63 percent to 37 percent. On gun control, less well-educated whites split evenly, while well-educated whites strongly support gun control, 66 percent to 34 percent.Evidence towards the opinion that John Stuart Mill expressed in a letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March, 1866):

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

Was America founded as a Republic? Yes.
By republicans? Yes.

Therefore there is a base to my argument.
He's talking about entirely different republicans. Not the same people. So no, there isn't. What you're saying has no relevance whatsoever.

Isn't it funny how a majority of people who have college degrees vote republican?
Source?

Source?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
Its right near the top, below the second "Vote by age"

Don't forget that the more successful someone is, the more likely they are to vote Republican too.

Don't forget that the more successful someone is, the more likely they are to vote Republican too.
only if theyre selfish and utterly lacking a social conscience

Isn't it funny how a majority of people who have college degrees vote republican?
the majority of people in existence vote democrat tho since they know the narrow agenda of elitist republicans is harmful to them

Don't forget that the more successful someone is, the more likely they are to vote Republican too.
that depends on how you define success; if you mean how much money somebody has accumulated, yes the ticket tends to be Republican. if you mean how educated a person is, you're wrong. if you define success as "increased likelihood to physically abuse one's children" then more "successful" people do tend to be Republican.

just some fun with stats, people :).

You consider my values "warped". Fine. But that is not an objective statement
when then tell me why you as a person who republicans are trying to actively impoverish prefers to vote against your own self interest?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
Its right near the top, below the second "Vote by age"

You can't use the last election as a good source here, especially not just looking at the presidential election. As far as the way they ran their campaigns, Gore and Bush seemed like the exact same guy. Hell, even I would've voted for Bush if my vote had counted (you wouldn't believe how glad I am now that my vote didn't count.

Now, a source that showed elections in general (as in, including president, congress, state reps, etc, etc) that might be more conclusive.

Of course, what I have heard (although not seen in a study) is that more educated people actually tend to be independent. These people don't have to rely on some party with no one's interests but their own in mind to tell them who to vote for.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
Its right near the top, below the second "Vote by age"
Your source also says that people with post Graduate degrees were more likely to vote for Gore (52%) than Bush (44%).

I also see that people who work full-time were more likely to vote for Gore (49%) than Bush (48%). People who don't were more likely to vote for Bush (48%) than Gore (47%). These stats hollow out the whole "Latrell" argument (i.e. lazy bums vote Democrat).

The government does not monitor to see if the money is being used for 22 inch Spinners or Gerber baby food. If Latrell spends my tax money on 800 channels of digital cable he can, if he needs it or not.

Well, why should it? Isn't it Latrell's responsibility to make sure he spends his income on what he needs? It's called budgeting.

See? I'm a self-described liberal who believes in personal responsibility. Cool, huh?


[QUOTE=New Auburnland]Where did I say Latrell is black? I guess you are guilty of racial profiling.[\QUOTE]

Actually, you said:
[QUOTE=New Auburnland]The policeman cannot search Latrell for a weapon because it would be “racial profiling.”[\QUOTE]
and
[QUOTE=New Auburnland]Again, when the police car shows up 15 minutes later...he cannot be pulled over because it would be “racial profiling.”[\QUOTE]

"Racial profiling" involves an assumption of guilt based on race, and I have never heard it applied to anybody but blacks and, more recently, Arabs.

[B]Aside:[\B] Damn formatting! Does anyone know how to fix it?

Joe rides the subway but lives in the country?

Yeah, I found it amusing, but kind of scary considering this guy was probably serious.

There are great things in both parties, and America is indebted to certain outstanding liberals and conservatives.

I loved Chris Rock's comments on partisanship in his performance on HBO. So often people make impassioned arguments, and use sophistry - which plagues these forums - and they don't think about things enough, or give sound argumentation.

Umm, to be brutally honest there, bucko, Free Medical Treatment is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it.


Besides that IT IS NOT FREE. Do you think that all of the medical supplies are jsut created for FREE, the doctors work for FREE, the hospital electricity is FREE, and that all of the hospital staff works for FREE.

To quote my economics proff, There is no such thing as a FREE lunch. Seriously, this idea of "free is really getting annoying because you can never get anything like food or medicare for free. These things take money to produce, and the people who offer services need some sort of payment for thier time, or they will not do them. By offering anything for "free" you are just offseting the cost to someone else. Sure, you can argue "but the rich can afford it" and it is true, they can, to a point. but there is a point where social resposability for your sucess becomes a punishment for doing well. These people should not be forced to provide for everyone just because they have more money. also, a lot of the truly rich people funnel their money through corporation so they pay almost no tax on it. so you know where the money from your "free" programs comes then? Thats right, the middle class. and if we cannot afford it, then the rest is chalked up to the national debt. I am all for helping people who are truly in need, but I dont want my money going for retarded things like cable TV and cars when the people need food. I also do not want to support scumbags who are content to live off of the scraps that we as teh working people, feed them. if you are down on your luck and truly do not want to be there, then I am glad my money supports you, but only if it is helping you on your goal to becoming self sufficient.

the majority of people in existence vote democrat tho since they know the narrow agenda of elitist republicans is harmful to them


Have you evel looked at congress and the house? There are more Republicans than their are democrats. we have a republican president, and most people people vote for republicans in their local offices.

perhaps you were refering to registered voters? Here is a list, from largest group to smallest, of what party people are registered to vote for.

Independant (IE No Party Affiliation)
Democrat
GOP
3rd parties.

While it is true that there are more registered democrats than there are republicans, most of the largest group (independants) tend to vote conservative on many issues. why? because the republican party has traditionally done a better job at appealing to centrists and the undecided. Please, look at your facts before you post them. Irrevelent data is funny at best, but annoying all of the time.

Have you evel looked at congress and the house? There are more Republicans than their are democrats. we have a republican president, and most people people vote for republicans in their local offices.

perhaps you were refering to registered voters? Here is a list, from largest group to smallest, of what party people are registered to vote for.

Independant (IE No Party Affiliation)
Democrat
GOP
3rd parties.

While it is true that there are more registered democrats than there are republicans, most of the largest group (independants) tend to vote conservative on many issues. why? because the republican party has traditionally done a better job at appealing to centrists and the undecided. Please, look at your facts before you post them. Irrevelent data is funny at best, but annoying all of the time.im fully aware that republicans control all three branches of the govt with their razor thin majority-thats why the state of the nation is in such bad shape