who likes G.Bush any way?

Post Reply New Topic

Yah. Be against the politcal party that has brough us most, if not ALL, of the social welfare programs we know and love (you know, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Head Start (for poor kids), and many others). IMO, the Democratic party put these programs in place to help the people who were screwed by the Republicans.

Well I used to think that too, but the election in 2004 really proved that wrong didn't it?


And all this stuff about the democrats being the ones promoting reverse-racism/reverse-sexism, promiscuous sexuality and unrealistic beauty standards is very silly stereotyping on your part... I vote democrat and I am against overly promiscuous sexuality... but I am much more shocked by the republican agenda which includes making it illegal for a man to get oral sex from his wife in certain states (among other things). And can you say that the democrats are responsible for the unrealistic beauty expectations when they put Kerry up against Bush?


I agree though that there is such a thing as being "too f*****g liberal" which is why I tend to identify myself as a moderate

Yeah. Because people who choose to sit in their apartments and refuse to work are really being "screwed" by the Republicans.

Social Security is designed to keep poor people stupid, ignorant and voting Democrat. It punishes them for trying to get jobs and rewards them for having extra kids - who barring some miracle will grow up to be poor, Democrat-voting leeches on the system.

Republicans have made it so these people can work. Most of them just choose not to, and the media isn't talking about the ones it does because the media is liberal.

No. No, it did not. Do we really have to go through why the Democrats basically committed campaign suicide? Because it's been done dozens of times.

The Democrats ran a campaign based on voting against Bush, rather than voting for Kerry, and consequently the swing voters knew what Bush was all about, but didn't know what Kerry was going to do, aside from saying whatever he thought would make his supporters happiest.

For example, the war. He refused to say outright that he was going to withdraw from Iraq, because he didn't want to offend the more conservative swing voters... but he sure wasn't supportive of it and was intentionally vague about his plans on dealing with what was left because he didn't want to upset the anti-war portions of his voter base.



OK, I'll agree to the fact that I was being pretty heavy-handed with the stereotypes. What I will say is, there are a significant amount of people like that - and the Democratic party caters to them. Stupidly, IMO, because the Democrats are going to get votes from anyone left of center anyway. They need to be preaching to the centrists and center-rights about why they're a better solution to the far right's imperialsm and big-business catering. But instead, they're doing more to alienate these people, by telling them how only stupid inbred hicks and fundamentalist nutballs (who are hicks by definition) vote Republican, and all smart people move to the city and vote Democrat.

Also, Republicans aren't trying to ban oral sex and never have. Those laws are mostly holdouts from the puritanical days of the 18th century. No one enforces them, and almost no one cares about them, exceptions being fundamentalists lunatics like Robertson and Ashcroft. It's just leftist pundits bringing that stuff up to demonize them.

tangent - http://www.dumblaws.com (It's got the oral sex stuff, also some other old ones. For example, in Baltimore, it is illegal to allow maneur to pile more than 6 feet high on a street corner... so I suppose I'm legally allowed to make a 5 foot tall crapheap on the corner of Pratt and Lexington.)

I don't have stong opinions aside from general dislike; however I might say he provides a great amount of comedic material.

do you mean too far left?

Bush is voted to office from a group of people that wont elect an atheist or agnostic - no matter how principled they are.

Bush is the culmination of a corrupt 1 and 1/2 party system who's interests lie not in keeping this nation and its people healthy, but only to themselves and their close friends.

Bush makes broad plans for this country but fails to make himself accountable for them. He doesnt justify his actions, but instead slanders the other side for not falling in line.

Bush prefers a dictatorship, as long as he's the dictator.

I was suckered into believeing that the Iraq war was the correct thing to do. Like everyone else, I bought the ploy that Iraq was an imminent threat, and Saddam must be removed to stabilize the region. I also wanted to believe that giving Iraqis freedom would be something honourable. Now I realized it was just my gullibility and hubris speaking. I was a fool to believe the WMD lies, and too ignorant in believing that removing a dictator will automatically make a group of people like you.

With all said and done, I think you know where I stand.

Oh yeah, the many people I know who are on welfare sit at home all day and don't work, makes me wonder why I seen them doing things at Mc.Donald's. NOT EVERYONE ONE WELFARE IS LAZY. A lot of people are on welfare for the following reasons:

1. Their employer went under.
2. Subsidiary to number one- their employer was either bought out by a big corporation or a big corporation moved in an drove the place out of business (Case in point- Wal-Mart)
3. Laid-off due to a labor cutback (Hence: Screwed by Republicans, since most, if not ALL of te major business leaders contribute greatly to the Republican party) in order to save profits (woe is the day a CEO can't afford another 5 cars)
4. Laid-off because the company went to China/Mexico/Canada/etc.
5. Unable to make enough money to live on because:
A. The cost of living just went up again.
B. The price of gas itself went up, effectively screwing many people'a already tight budgets over.
C. The company has lost money somehow (Profit loss, lawsuit, etc.). Now how will a company protect it's profit without raising the price of whatever it provides? ...give up? Cut wages!
6. Single parent. One income, two children.

I'd list more, but you'd probably just ignore them anyway.

And as for Social Security, as you say "is designed to keep poor people stupid, ignorant and voting Democrat. It punishes them for trying to get jobs and rewards them for having extra kids - who barring some miracle will grow up to be poor, Democrat-voting leeches on the system.", makes no sense at all. Social Security (I also include Food Stamps/Wic/TANF/SSI in with it for simplicity's sake) is what has kept many families from being pushed into poverty, and living on the streets. My own family has had to utilize SS programs, and my step-father works a full time job as a welder, where he is in constant danger and is exposed to some pretty bad carcinogeons, and makes barely enough to cover all of our expsenses). In fact, SS has helped the Republicn Party you seen to love so much (it's very apparent). Wonder how? As I've said, most of our goods and service providers are Republican corporations. Think of all of the old people drawing Social Security. Many of the old peopel who enjoy life that draw from SS have to use some of these goods and services sometimes, right?

"Republicans have made it so these people can work. Most of them just choose not to, and the media isn't talking about the ones it does because the media is liberal."

Cutting wages, laying off workers, closing plants (effectively destroying many cities), buying a plant for a tax-ride off and then closing it (yes, this is done, and it is a tax loophole), moving to another country, embezzling millions, sometimes even BILLIONS...yeah. The Republicans have done much in help people work. As for most people choosing not to work; sadly for your argument, there are safeguards put in place in the SS programs that prevent leeching (you know, like requiring people to get jobs and such).

And as for liberal media. Well, I could simply crush this with FOX News. But, I'd like to entertain the thought for a minute. The main reason, IMO, that the media shows so much "leftist" material is that the corporations that own most of the broadcast companies and channels are, GASP, pro-Republican; and, as far as I've seen, there hasn't been too much steller news coming from the Republican camp these days; and I don't think pro-Repub corporations would like too much anti-Republican news being shown.

Your ball McJeff.

Fox News isn't news, it's pundits putting a hard-right spin on the same things everyone else put a hard-left spin on. For it to count as news, there has to be at least a veneer of impartiality, and Fox doesn't even attempt that.

Now other than that, you managed to jump from welfare, which does keep people ignorant, to social security, which is completely different. So while I agree with the portion of your post in regards to social security, I don't believe it attempted to refute what I said.

Sadly, the rest of your post is mainly correct - just incorrectly applied to Republicans instead of both parties. Developers, such as the parent company that owns WalMart, are the biggest contributors to campaign finances, and so ALL politicians will bend over backwards and grovel to make the companies happy. And what makes them happy is shipping their labor overseas where there is no minimum wage and they can hire work for 2 cents an hour.

And if you think the Democrats are going to try and change that, you're a lunatic. They want that campaign money too.

Bullcrap. Most people stay on disability because the jobs they could get, they would be making less than they would on Welfare or Disability and also having to pay for childcare if they had kids. Many people cannot afford to get off Disability and work.

Though I do agree that the Republicans screw the poor over. Vote in Democrats and get some money into those social programs and then MAYBE people won't be so poor anymore. MAYBE people on disability could also get jobs and not be dependent on the disability.

As for the poor (aside from the disabled poor), Democrats would hopefully start putting money into school systems-- and I'm not talking about the ones in middle and upper class neighborhoods. I'm talking about deep inner city and in other poorer areas. That way kids can learn enough that they don't have to stay in poverty. Education is a huge key to all this.

Republicans promise no new taxes as well as tax cuts to the people up top who don't even frigging need it. While they slash every social program they can get their hands on. Example: Here in the Missouri House this last August, Republicans voted to decrease benefits. Some of these included cuts on wheelchair batteries, Diabetes education, and other physical therapy equipment which were deemed "unnecessary". Not to mention this last August, Missouri threw over 108,000 people off state insurance and this does not include their dependents which would make that number even higher-- nor does it also include what Missouri calls "Spenddown" which is essentially throwing people off Medicaid by requiring them to accumulate ridiculously high medical bills each month in order for Medicaid to kick in. For myself, this amount was $802 per month. Now, unless I were getting chemotherapy, there is no way in hell I could accrue that much in medical bills per month. Which means... NO INSURANCE.

Now, after taking away insurance from all these people, the ironic thing is that very same week the Republican majority in the Missouir House pushed through a raise in their OWN insurance. Like they need it!

BTW, has anyone happened to see what the "government" considers the poverty level? It's ridiculous. Nobody can live on that amount unless they're living with someone else who is sharing the load. Poverty level my ass.

Thank you for making my point for me.

If the people make more than the minimum wage on welfare, plus extra for each kid they have, they're never going to get a job because it's more work for less money. So you see, the welfare system does prevent people from climbing up the social chain.

A better system would be to augment their paycheck until such a time as they'd be making more money from their current job, than they would have been from minimum wage + welfare benefits.

Of course, then they'd be middle class, and both democrats and republicans hate middle class because middle class people tend to be un-corrupt, free-thinking voters who remain principled enough to object to the war in Iraq and the lack of seperation between church and state, while questioining why they should have their money stolen by the government and spent on socialist programs. After being humiliated by Perot in '92, both parties are united in keeping everyone else out.

Don't say stupid things. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word dictator.

Of course it was taken out of context, but it was still funny as hell:

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/ ... tator.html

I was born in Romania, which at the time was run by a dictator.

wel·fare Audio pronunciation of "welfare" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wlfâr)
n.
1. 1. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. 2. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3. 1. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.


By definition, Social Security IS welfare. In fact, Social Security is the basis of our welfare system.

Welfare is not meant to keep people ignorant. If it was, then no money would be put into public schools and federal grants for schooling wouldn't exist. If you awnt a people htat you can control, educating them is the LAST thing you would ever want to do. The welfare system has protections built into it that require people who draw welfare to get jobs. Yes, there are flaws and many people manage to get away with not working, but with such a large system it is inevitable.



Oh don't worry, I don't think the Democratic party is all high and mighty either, I'm just saying tha tthey have AT LEAST tried to help out the people at the bottom. Whilst the Republican party just keeps getting richer. Both sides are corrupt to the core.

Most of the money contributed by big business is to the Republican party, which is why places like Wal-Mart have been able to get away with screwing their employees (figuratively speaking, of course). Low wages, crappy hours (when my step-dad was a manager-esque person at Wal-Mart, they made him work overtime without paying him for it on some occasions).

Okay a couple things that I would like to address that Ive seen here, Lincoln did far worse things but is still considered one of the best if not the best president in US history (think about it he launched and unprovoked war against a soverign democracy (well sorta the south was defientally more democratic then Iraq was.) Also in the 2000 democratic party platform they quite clearly said "we will seek to remove him (Hussein) from power", that sounds to me like they could have indeed launched the war, especcially after 9/11, how they would have done it I don't pretend to know but its all right there (and Im sure its still online so feel free to check it out.) The main problem Ive seen in the last election is that they were too polorized (NE democrat vs southern republican.)

But my point is that the Republican government has kept it at the bare minimum. Welfare could be reformed so that it actually helped people and didn't make them dependent. I agree that at the bare minimum, the Reps like to keep these people dependent on the Welfare solely. But that doesn't mean Welfare in general is bad. It's just Welfare the way it is right now is bad. But it could be improved. Democrats are the more likely to put through social reforms hopefully thereby improving the Welfare system from what it is now.

That's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, McJeff.