And ALL conservatives are Republicans and ALL Republicans are racists/anarchists.lowing wrote:
ALL liberals are democrats and all democrats are socialists/communists. You simply can not endorse govt. takeover without it being so.Harmor wrote:
Not necessarily.lowing wrote:
in the US, liberals = democrats.
Not all liberals are Democrats. Some liberals are Socialist. Fewer are Communists.
Same with Conservatives are not all Republicans. Some are Libertarian.
Well this is constructive..lol.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You've apparently never heard of Blue Dog Democrats.lowing wrote:
ALL liberals are democrats and all democrats are socialists/communists. You simply can not endorse govt. takeover without it being so.Harmor wrote:
Not necessarily.lowing wrote:
in the US, liberals = democrats.
Not all liberals are Democrats. Some liberals are Socialist. Fewer are Communists.
Same with Conservatives are not all Republicans. Some are Libertarian.
As stated before this goes deeper than just politics. The democrats want to remove rightful power from the people. It fall right in line with the liberal mission of total govt. control with the people being dependant on govt.Turquoise wrote:
Fixedlowing wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/push-kennedy-successor-stirs-political-storm/
Just goes to show that liberal human hypocrisy knows no bounds, they actually want to repeal a law that they themselves put in place because now that law does not benefit them.
They are pushing for this so they have more chance to get the healthcare reform through.
And if I wanted to broadly generalize conservatism, it could easily be described as also taking power away from the common man by letting corporations run everything.lowing wrote:
As stated before this goes deeper than just politics. The democrats want to remove rightful power from the people. It fall right in line with the liberal mission of total govt. control with the people being dependant on govt.Turquoise wrote:
Fixedlowing wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/push-kennedy-successor-stirs-political-storm/
Just goes to show that liberal human hypocrisy knows no bounds, they actually want to repeal a law that they themselves put in place because now that law does not benefit them.
Not hardly and worse yet, you have no proof of it.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
And ALL conservatives are Republicans and ALL Republicans are racists/anarchists.lowing wrote:
ALL liberals are democrats and all democrats are socialists/communists. You simply can not endorse govt. takeover without it being so.Harmor wrote:
Not necessarily.
Not all liberals are Democrats. Some liberals are Socialist. Fewer are Communists.
Same with Conservatives are not all Republicans. Some are Libertarian.
I can back up my opinion and have
conservsative favor personal responsibility, with little govt. interference except where expected by the constitution. This is hardly anarchy.
I will also maintain that there are no racists greater than liberals.
The minority party is always referred to as anarchist. Because they disagree with those running the government.
Kinda funny.
Kinda funny.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This has nothing to do with taking power away from you, it has everything to do with profit which in turn feeds the economy and keeps people employed.Turquoise wrote:
And if I wanted to broadly generalize conservatism, it could easily be described as also taking power away from the common man by letting corporations run everything.lowing wrote:
As stated before this goes deeper than just politics. The democrats want to remove rightful power from the people. It fall right in line with the liberal mission of total govt. control with the people being dependant on govt.Turquoise wrote:
Fixed
You still have the power and are encourged in fact to build a better widget, market it, and take shares away from yout competitors.
halowing wrote:
I will also maintain that there are no racists greater than liberals.
I have Obama, Gates, Jackson, Sharpton, McKinney etc. as perfect examples.AussieReaper wrote:
halowing wrote:
I will also maintain that there are no racists greater than liberals.
How is it that people like yourself can be so paranoid of government and so trusting of the market?lowing wrote:
This has nothing to do with taking power away from you, it has everything to do with profit which in turn feeds the economy and keeps people employed.
You still have the power and are encourged in fact to build a better widget, market it, and take shares away from yout competitors.
Can't you see it's a balance that is necessary for a functioning society?
perhaps, and this goes to yet more examples of liberal mis-direction as a weapon because the truth shall never show them in a favorable light.AussieReaper wrote:
They are pushing for this so they have more chance to get the healthcare reform through.
Lincoln was a liberal too. So was MLK. So was Gandhi.lowing wrote:
I have Obama, Gates, Jackson, Sharpton, McKinney etc. as perfect examples.AussieReaper wrote:
halowing wrote:
I will also maintain that there are no racists greater than liberals.
Ahhhh, and you now call removing voters rights, and govt take over of private enterprise as balanced? Forgive me if I call ity what it is. Socialism-Communism-FascismTurquoise wrote:
How is it that people like yourself can be so paranoid of government and so trusting of the market?lowing wrote:
This has nothing to do with taking power away from you, it has everything to do with profit which in turn feeds the economy and keeps people employed.
You still have the power and are encourged in fact to build a better widget, market it, and take shares away from yout competitors.
Can't you see it's a balance that is necessary for a functioning society?
You did note that all of my examples were of people still alive and pertain to current events.......right?Turquoise wrote:
Lincoln was a liberal too. So was MLK. So was Gandhi.lowing wrote:
I have Obama, Gates, Jackson, Sharpton, McKinney etc. as perfect examples.AussieReaper wrote:
ha
Lincoln would do whatever it took to keep the union together, if that meant keeping slaves slaves he would have done so.
This MLK? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea … plagiarist he was a liberal I have no doubt, the shoe does fit.
Ghandi, gimme a break, he has nothing to do with american politics and the liberal agenda today
You do realize most states appoint replacements to Senators via the Governor.lowing wrote:
Ahhhh, and you now call removing voters rights, and govt take over of private enterprise as balanced? Forgive me if I call ity what it is. Socialism-Communism-FascismTurquoise wrote:
How is it that people like yourself can be so paranoid of government and so trusting of the market?lowing wrote:
This has nothing to do with taking power away from you, it has everything to do with profit which in turn feeds the economy and keeps people employed.
You still have the power and are encourged in fact to build a better widget, market it, and take shares away from yout competitors.
Can't you see it's a balance that is necessary for a functioning society?
It's not "removing voter's rights" by making this change in Massachusetts. It is blatantly hypocritical and self-serving, but it's not violating people's rights.
Government socialization of businesses that has occurred under the current administration is actually corporatism, because most of the control is actually still in the hands of business leaders. It would be socialism if they completely took over the leadership of these companies. So far, that hasn't happened.
GM is where the government has taken the biggest steps in controlling a company, but even in this case, the government owns a minority of the stock, and while the government has members on the board, the company ultimately still is run privately.
So, at what point did liberalism become this ominous force of evil? You've clearly backpedalled when I bring up historical figures, so I'd like to know. I'd like to know when and how exactly this transition came to be.lowing wrote:
You did note that all of my examples were of people still alive and pertain to current events.......right?Turquoise wrote:
Lincoln was a liberal too. So was MLK. So was Gandhi.lowing wrote:
I have Obama, Gates, Jackson, Sharpton, McKinney etc. as perfect examples.
Lincoln would do whatever it took to keep the union together, if that meant keeping slaves slaves he would have done so.
This MLK? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea … plagiarist he was a liberal I have no doubt, the shoe does fit.
Ghandi, gimme a break, he has nothing to do with american politics and the liberal agenda today
Did I not state it is the "Will of the people" if that needs to be accomplished through voting so be it. Is it not obvious what the outcome will be so let's just skip the formalities and have the governor appoint?lowing wrote:
This is not the reason given by the democrats at the time. there reason was it should be up to the voters to decide not the governor.Narupug wrote:
You say what is happening is "hypocritical" and I for once agree, the facts are right. What you fail to realize is that the point of the government is to serve the will of the people, and the will of the people is not to put a Republican in that Senate seat. I acknowledge that Romney was elected by the people of Massachusetts, but he mainly won because of his fame for being part of the Salt Lake Olympics and because he ran on an extremely moderate platform. Once he got into office Romney was less then popular and had he had to appoint a Senator, he would have appointed a Republican because of party affiliation. A Republican would have gone against the will of the People of Massachusetts. Now that party politics does not need to be worried about interfereing with the appointment of a reputable person the seat, the law can be repealed. It might not end up being repealed, it still might end up as an interim election.
Well is it up to the voters to decide or not? Per the democrats, it all depends on who favors them at the time.
Sorry, when the liberals big "concern" was voters rights when they removed the power from the governor, it then becomes the issue when they try to removes those same rights from the voter.Turquoise wrote:
You do realize most states appoint replacements to Senators via the Governor.lowing wrote:
Aha, and you now call removing voters rights, and govt take over of private enterprise as balanced? Forgive me if I call IT what it is. Socialism-Communism-FascismTurquoise wrote:
How is it that people like yourself can be so paranoid of government and so trusting of the market?
Can't you see it's a balance that is necessary for a functioning society?
It's not "removing voter's rights" by making this change in Massachusetts. It is blatantly hypocritical and self-serving, but it's not violating people's rights.
Government socialization of businesses that has occurred under the current administration is actually corporatism, because most of the control is actually still in the hands of business leaders. It would be socialism if they completely took over the leadership of these companies. So far, that hasn't happened.
GM is where the government has taken the biggest steps in controlling a company, but even in this case, the government owns a minority of the stock, and while the government has members on the board, the company ultimately still is run privately.
As far as the govt. take over over private enterprise, the auto industry, the health industry etc. you sure can make it sound so pleasant and benign. Ever hear of baby steps? Do you really think this is as deep as govt. wants to get into our lives? Do you really believe that?
Because...that's not how it works.Narupug wrote:
Did I not state it is the "Will of the people" if that needs to be accomplished through voting so be it. Is it not obvious what the outcome will be so let's just skip the formalities and have the governor appoint?
If someone was appointed in that manner, any legislation that passed can be challenged in a court. In the long run, this does not save any time whatsoever.
What is obvious is they want the people to vote when they are assured a victory, and they want to remove that vote when their victory is in question.Narupug wrote:
Did I not state it is the "Will of the people" if that needs to be accomplished through voting so be it. Is it not obvious what the outcome will be so let's just skip the formalities and have the governor appoint?lowing wrote:
This is not the reason given by the democrats at the time. there reason was it should be up to the voters to decide not the governor.Narupug wrote:
You say what is happening is "hypocritical" and I for once agree, the facts are right. What you fail to realize is that the point of the government is to serve the will of the people, and the will of the people is not to put a Republican in that Senate seat. I acknowledge that Romney was elected by the people of Massachusetts, but he mainly won because of his fame for being part of the Salt Lake Olympics and because he ran on an extremely moderate platform. Once he got into office Romney was less then popular and had he had to appoint a Senator, he would have appointed a Republican because of party affiliation. A Republican would have gone against the will of the People of Massachusetts. Now that party politics does not need to be worried about interfereing with the appointment of a reputable person the seat, the law can be repealed. It might not end up being repealed, it still might end up as an interim election.
Well is it up to the voters to decide or not? Per the democrats, it all depends on who favors them at the time.
When? 2 fucking words Jimmy Carter, that is whenTurquoise wrote:
So, at what point did liberalism become this ominous force of evil? You've clearly backpedalled when I bring up historical figures, so I'd like to know. I'd like to know when and how exactly this transition came to be.lowing wrote:
You did note that all of my examples were of people still alive and pertain to current events.......right?Turquoise wrote:
Lincoln was a liberal too. So was MLK. So was Gandhi.
Lincoln would do whatever it took to keep the union together, if that meant keeping slaves slaves he would have done so.
This MLK? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea … plagiarist he was a liberal I have no doubt, the shoe does fit.
Ghandi, gimme a break, he has nothing to do with american politics and the liberal agenda today
You bring up figures that have absolutely nothing to do with the here and now.
And Republicans have never resorted to dirty tricks to retain power??
Come on, they are notorious for it. Its politics, it sucks,but there you go. Dont be childish enough to think that the the other team is innocent of this.
Come on, they are notorious for it. Its politics, it sucks,but there you go. Dont be childish enough to think that the the other team is innocent of this.
READING COMPREHENSION FOR THE MOTHER-FUCKING WIN:
I mean, main party actions, of course, since we are generalizing. Specifically, yes, Kennedy was a moron.
GG.
I don't actually see anything hypocritical.. they are actually clarifying something... They are still holding elections to decide on the replacement senator...Article wrote:
On a day when members of both parties paid their respects to Mr. Kennedy, a Democratic icon who died this week of brain cancer, Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy. In 2004, the state's Democrat-controlled legislature changed the law to prevent the governor from appointing an interim successor after a U.S. Senate seat becomes vacant. Instead, the new law requires that a special election be held between 145 and 165 days after the position becomes vacant.
At the time, Democratic Sen. John Kerry was running for president and Massachusetts had a Republican governor, Mitt Romney. Proponents of changing the law argued that a gubernatorial appointment was undemocratic and that only voters should decide on a replacement. Democrats also feared Mr. Romney would appoint a Republican.
Now, with Mr. Kennedy dying three years before his term was up, some Massachusetts Democrats are reversing course, calling for Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement to hold office until the special election can be held. They now argue the state shouldn't be without full Senate representation for months, especially with pressing issues such as health care before Congress.
I mean, main party actions, of course, since we are generalizing. Specifically, yes, Kennedy was a moron.
GG.
EE (hats