To the Democrats Out There

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like that madman Clinton. More military deployments under him than any other President in history. His medling where we didn't belong got a lot of good soldiers killed and lot of foreigners angry. Bush has done more to make the world safe for Americans and stabilize global politics than any other President since Vietnam.

Amen - I suggest those who don't understand Clinton's approach to military deployments watch "Blackhawk Down" again. Recognize that Clinton and the UN agreed that tanks and heavier air support to protect our troops would not have been politically correct. The tactical missions (like choosing to go in during daylight) were designed by UN compromises, but deployed by US troops.

Can you imagine a US military with Kerry as Commander in Chief?:scrutiny: :barf: :scrutiny:
 
I agree with a lot of what Mark Tyson said.

To address the original question, because if the Republicans keep on handing out H1-B visas like candy and encouraging the wholesale offshoring of American jobs, many of us won't have any income with which to buy guns and ammo. You have to have money.

Up to now, I've preferred to vote for the most moderate Democrats and give 'em hell on gun control and immigration.

However, I've recently decided I'm an out-and-out Independent. I cannot stand W. Bush and I find J. Kerry equally repellent. I am also deeply suspicious of this Skull and Bones tie that they share. Saw a story in my local paper where they interviewed a few Bonesmen who said they didn't care who won in November because, "It's a win-win situation for us either way." :uhoh:

Unfortunately, as a strong feminist, it's very, very difficult for me to find candidates who represent all my views: pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-civil liberties, pro-states rights, anti-big government, anti-Iraq war, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-globalization and free trade, and pro-worker's rights and pro-personal responsibilitiy. So I ain't votin' for Bush nor Kerry.

I have a suspicion that it doesn't really matter who get in in November--they're both Bonesmen, from the same Yale University good old boys network. And I sense that Texas, the west, and much of the south may not remain onboard with the union for just a whole lot longer...
 
The "Progressive wing" of the Democratic party, Pelosi and Daschle, have led the party far to the left. If there were more honerable Democrats than just Zell Miller and Joe Liberman then I would consider having some respect for them. But, it isn't so.


Unfortunately Zell will not run for reelection. Fortuantely Georgia has a strong chance of electing a second republican.

Now after being a life long Rebup, they would stop screwing with my retirement and health care benefits i could be happy.
 
To me the gun issue is an indicator of political leanings in general. It is like the canary in the coal mine. I do not trust any politician who does not trust me, Democrat or Republican. Disarming the population is always the first act of tyrants. And, yes I do believe that the Nay voters have a large percentage of tyrant wannabes.

I do not agree with Bush about immigration, but at least those people want to work. I would like to see a system where immigrants could come to work here if their host country would take one of our chronically unemployed substance abusers that I am forced to support.
 
I would like to see a system where immigrants could come to work here if their host country would take one of our chronically unemployed substance abusers that I am forced to support.

agree.gif
 
Illogical Political Statements

Ealier in the thread someone discussed illogical arguments.

Try this one.

The mayor of Atlanta GA on Gay marriage:

"80% of black children are bore to single parent home, so I support Gay marriage"


So help me Georgia Public Radio, who broadcast it.

I am still trying to connect the claues, like we had to do in English class.:rolleyes:
 
And that bad old Ollie North. He was interfering with the Soviet/Cuban plan to overthrow central american countries and install Communist governments. He did this after the Democrats in congress prevented Reagan from providing aid and training to the embattled government. Am I surprised that the Democrats favored the Soviets and Cubans over North and Reagan? Nope.


My opinion of Ollie North has changed by 180 deg. over the past 15 years. I've gone from being dissappointed that he didn't serve time for Iran Contra to now hoping he runs against RINO-sellout-backstabber-Quisling Sen. Warner. Ollie North's got my vote.
 
offers olive branch

Olive branch accepted, dischord.

We are just not going to agree on some things. It is a question of different values. Libertarians value economic liberty as much as personal liberties like speech and RKBA. Liberals see economic liberty as subject to some regulation; conservatives seek to regulate some aspects of one's personal life. It might be possible to prove that the party X's economic program will not deliver, but it is much harder to change someone's value system.

I was very critical of the libertarians recently in another thread, but I have to say that I sympathize with them sometimes. The core of libertarianism, personal responsibility, is a necessary concept, as kyoung05 wrote. There is lots of government waste, and there is lots of abuse of the welfare system, no doubt about it. And it's not as if I enjoy paying taxes myself.

Some of my past comments have been a little harsh. I will ease up on my criticism of libertarians, but I reserve the right to politely advance a dissenting viewpoint, and I'm going to leave that essay in my sig for anyone who wants to read the opinion of someone who is skeptical of the libertarian program. And much thanks to all libertarians who actually read the article; I read the LP's stuff every now and then.

Once we destroy gun control as an issue we can argue until the end of the world about taxes and health care.

Now let me get back to work, or I'll be the one competing for one of those low wage, no future jobs. LOL
 
and I'm going to leave that essay in my sig
... as long as you realize its straw man flaw of pointing to Chile's non-libertarian, non-free-market economy to criticize libertarian free-market thinking. ;)
 
Saw a story in my local paper where they interviewed a few Bonesmen who said they didn't care who won in November because, "It's a win-win situation for us either way."


DING,DING,DING...BS meter is pegged! love to see a link to that one!
 
StrDog:

Ealier in the thread someone discussed illogical arguments.

Try this one.

The mayor of Atlanta GA on Gay marriage:

"80% of black children are bore to single parent home, so I support Gay marriage"


So help me Georgia Public Radio, who broadcast it.

I am still trying to connect the claues, like we had to do in English class.

I think the link between the two is that a lot of those black children are put up for adoption because the single parent simply cannot care for them properly. Then, gay couples, because they cannot have children of their own adopt them. Hence, less children are stuck in foster homes, orphanages, etc because there are couples who are willing to take them.

Having said that...WHAT A BUNCH OF BS!!!

That is like saying "let's solve one problem with another"...or that "two-wrongs make a right" and so on. Yes, children born to unfit parents is a problem, but not one that is solved through allowance of gay marriages. Would-be parents who are not responsible enough to have children, or those who are not financially ready to do so either, SHOULD NOT! Because there are institutions in place like orphanages, and adoption, these parents get the idea that it's OK to have children whenever for whatever reason, ready to or not, and that someone will take care of them.

The fact that 80% of Black children in Atlanta get born into single-parents homes is evidence that there are stupid people unfit to raise children breeding out there, not support for gay couples raising them.

This, incidentally, is the reason that I am pro-choice. Not because I and gung-ho about a woman's right to choose (Nor am I against it either), but becasue I don't want people being forced to have kids when they clearly do not want them. I mean, how do you think people would raise their kids when they had wanted to abort them instead? Clearly they'd grow up neglected, abused, hated, unwanted, etc. When they grow up they will no doubt be violent and unstable. I do not want these people on the streets threatenting the safety of myself or mine. If they don't want the kids, fine, get rid of them. I do not want them putting a double burden on society, once by havint the state raise them with tax dollars, and again when they are muggin/raping/murdering people when they grow up. Clearly the ultimate solution would be to not allow these people from breeding at all in the first place, but I think my proposal to the situation would be too extremist for even these boards. :uhoh:
 
HBK, abortion isnt discussed on THR, because of its highly inflamatory nature. Its a surefired way to kill a thread.


And I would support gun control before I supported mandatory spaying and neutering of people. But then again, I would have shot someone(s) for trying to neuter me too.
 
Can we please stop with the bashing of one person's party just because of their label? If you want to bash a Dem, say why they suck, not just "They are Dem, and that they suck is all you need to know. "

Get a hold of yourself.
 
The reason I don't like Democrats (and I should disclose that I was a registered Democrat from 1977 until 2002), is that they have been hijacked by the communist party from the inside. I changed to Libertarian party and have never looked back. You can call the Donks the progressives, workers party, democratic socialists or whatever. It is all the same. I only ever wanted protection of wild places and environmental regulation. But I think that the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, etc have little concern for the environment. I am not talking about all Democrats, just about 75% of Democrats. The reasons I don't like Democrats:

Here is my short list:

1. Lieing, it has become the party of defense attorneys and ambulance chasers. It raises the cost of everything and hurts the poor the most.

2. Stealing, taking money at gunpoint to give to those who will vote for them. Did God put me here to toil for them as a slave?

3. Slavery, See above. The Democrats supported slavery in the south. Now they just chose a class instead of a race (after the communists took over). It is the party of lazy thieves.

4. Gun control, only the first step in their power hungry utopian plan. See the votes in the first post in this thread.

5. Political correctness, saying that civil liberties are being taken from people (power to the people!!!!!) while crimminalizing speech or religion that is not acceptable to them. Appointing activist judges to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean the opposite of what they really say. The outcome is that freedom is only what Democrats say it is. And it is the opposite of what freedom really is.

6. Misery, the concept that equal opportunity really means equal outcome regardless of effort or ability. I am forced to live close to the standard of living of those who consistently make bad personal decisions.

7. Death, about 170 million deaths by socialist/communist governments against their own people in the last century. Why is this not enough to prove a failed and evil concept. See also number 4.

Is that enough?
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have an IQ of 135, and my SAT equivalent is 1400. What's yours? How many languages do you speak?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This one of the big things that I find troubling about many Democrats. The elitist arrogance is sickening.

Just give us more of you money and we will take care of you and yours. We know how to manage it better than you do...especially if you make more than $200,000/yr. And remember Uncle (Kennedy/Kerry) when you cast your vote.

No, you can't have vouchers. Send your kids to the public schools. We don't want you at our private schools.

"-- Q: Did your children attend public or private schools?
A: Private schools. Because the particular schools they attended were right for our children's needs. "
From http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1223a.html

Private schools just aren't right for your kids needs.

The separation of church and state fairy tale "Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This ONLY means that CONGRESS shall not force a particular religion on the people or prevent them from following a particular religion. It does not say that a particular religion can not be prominent. It means that government should not force a religion, not that religion will not influence government. The Separation of Church and State position is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

:banghead:
 
Last edited:
Beer or whine?

DIVISION;

LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES:

The division of the human family into its two distinct branches occurred some 10,000 years ago, a few hundred years after the flood. Humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. In the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups: - - - Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle or aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days killing animals to barbeque at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of the conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned how to live off conservatives by showing up for the BBQs every night and doing women's work like sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement. Later, some of the liberals actually became women.

Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, invention of group therapy and democratic voting to see how to divide the beer and meat that the conservatives provided. Women were not interested in democracy at that time because most of them were still women back then, and the conservatives fed them.

Conservatives are symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern Liberals like imported beer (they add lime), but most prefer white wine or foreign water in a bottle. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and french food are on liberal menus. Their women have more testosterone than the men. Liberals like deviant sex and want others to like it too. Their first successful city governments were Sodom and Gomorrah.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, and group therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat, and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumber jacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals do not produce anything. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what is to be done with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals just stayed in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.

Conservatives have principles, believe in a Creator, and the rule of law. They practice charity and give to the poor, normally through their churches. When in doubt on an issue, they check both the Bible and the Constitution, which they use as a constant reference in a changing world. They believe in the concept of truth.

Liberals do not have principles, except for their dedication to stealing production of conservatives and undermining principled references such as the Bible and Constitution. They are never in doubt on an issue because they always do whatever is best for them without regard to others. They have no standard of reference. Liberals do not give to charity. They cultivate the poor like a cat cultivates a field of mice. They use the poor as voters and give them a portion of stolen tax money which they vote away from conservatives.

Conservatives believe in self defense, both at home and abroad. They own guns and use them to discourage liberals and other common criminals. They provide guns to the armed forces to discourage foreign liberals and other foreign criminals.

Liberals do not believe in conservative self defense. They disarm conservatives, and then attack them with impunity by liberal armies with guns. King George, Hitler and Stalin were all liberals who abandoned the rule of Law, had no principles except their own self indulgence, and attempted to tax and govern conservatives. Liberals believe in BIG government. They think the United Nations is the ultimate answer.

Conservatives believe in the rule of law and when sitting on juries, convict common criminals and acquit fellow conservatives who have been charged by liberals. When serving in the armed forces, they shoot liberals from other countries who want to govern our country. Conservatives know the difference between a common-sense law and a bone-headed statute passed by some liberal from Massachusetts. When sitting on juries, they do not enforce bone-headed statutes, and don't explain their reasons.

Liberals only believe in whatever laws are appealing to them, such as the privilege of making a living by taxing conservatives. When sitting on juries, liberals convict producers and acquit liberals and other common criminals. Modern Judges are all liberals as they do not produce anything except chaos, and are paid with confiscated tax money. They consider it against the law to reference any source of law such as the Bible or Constitution. Like other liberals, they just make it up as they go and do what is best for them. Judge Roy Bean is their model.

The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full-bore Conservative. A hundred years ago, an Englishman visiting Texas was attempting to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands, and inquired, "Pardon me, but could you perhaps tell me where I might locate your master?" To which the cowboy replied, "That sumbitch ain't been born yet".

So, what'll it be? Wine or Beer? Domestic or Imported?



Tim
(No I am not the author. I stole it!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top