United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: What is the textbook definition of a democrat
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 11, 2018
Author: Definition
Post Date: 2018-11-11 11:27:06 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 5470
Comments: 68
Democrat noun 1. A murderer of innocent children. 2. A person who is attracted to someone of their same sex. 3. A thief that wants to live off of someone else's labor. Feels a sense of entitlement to others labor. 4. An anti christian bigot who hates God and morals. 5. Someone who cuts off or has someone cut off their penis because they are mentally ill and do not know their own sex.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
I loathe democrats just a little bit more than republicans. But there is no reason to make-up stupid, useless and offense definitions and post to a thread. Your own actions are destroying this chit-chat channel as people realize you are wasting their time.
Yeah God haTing Egomaniac criminal - weirdos Axis of devils - freaks ThaT's iT If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Democrat, n. A registered member of the Democratic Party of the United States. (which I am not). Here are the aspects about Democrats that are more favorable to them: (1) Favor policies that provide a safety net for the poor, working and middle classes, such as: - Social Security - Medicare - Universal Public Schooling - Medicaid - Must-treat mandates for people with life-threatening problems who present themselves at emergency rooms - Housing initiatives for the poor - Food stamp and school meal programs for the poor. - Student aid - Home heating assistance for the elderly - Disability benefits - Unemployment benefits. Republicans generally oppose the social safety net. (2) Favor workers rights and protections, such as: - Minimum Wage laws - Worker's Compensation and Workplace Safety laws - Working hours legislations, including maximum work weeks and time-and-a-half and double- time rules. - Right to form unions. - Maternity leave laws Republicans generally oppose worker protections and rights. (3) Favor anti-discrimination laws, such as - Voting Rights acts - Civil Rights acts - Legal aid for the indigent and for victims of racism Republicaxns g are generally silent on these protections. The above list of distinctively Democratic positions are why they have such broad support in the American public. The issue is not simply that the Democrats support these things, but that the Republicans actively oppose them. This drives many people who would not otherwise be Democrats to join them, because the Republican position is often so repulsive.
You are a filthy paultard liar.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Hmmm ... are you overseeing my discarded chads, now?
The ouTer axis of saniTy AlmosT Touches The axis of liberals - insaniTy ThaT's where The liberTarians hover Love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
To the bleeding hearts and irresponsible they probably would be.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
It's sad when yukon's Log Cabin Republican canaries have to brag about being gayer than Ted Kennedy, to get Boris' vote. I don't care what F--keroo says, you're right, excepting I would add a few more to the list. The definition for Democrat can be found in the dictionary under A!
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
That John Wayne blurb is priceless!
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
That is a lie. They tax minimum wage earners so that they cannot live without government assistance or someone else helping them. Stealing from people trying to make a living and giving it to others is unchristian and wrong. You may think 50 or 60 percent taxes are ok. But that is because you are a communist hypocrite. Or at least close to a communist mindset.
A ponzi scheme that is like gambling.
They don't give a shit about the poor. They hate the poor. That is why they like abortion. They want the poor to kill themselves.
Not true. A real safety net. Not your version commie lite. You like the state over the individual. You are a statist hypocrite. Walk the walk. Give your stuff away and quit trying to use the force of the government to take away from people who are trying to make ends meet for your Utopian stupidity.
Stone, your reaction to what the Democrats are is the standard Republican response. Democrats are what I wrote. Republicans are what you are. There are more Independents than either Democrats or Republicans, because most people don't like various aspects of what Democrats offer (such as abortion, or anti-military postures, or race pandering, or open-borders policies), and most people find your Republican viewpoint about people, so clearly stated in your four preceding e-mails and the one before that by a different poster, to be quite ugly and wrong. You go on being a Republican. Democrats will go on being Democrats. I'll go on being Independent, because I don't agree with either side. The Democrats have too much bad in their platform, and Republicans are way too evil.
I’m an independent... and you are full of shit. Do some soul searching. You’ve allowed yourself to be indoctrinated left, more than you can see. It’s people like you, blind fuckers who don’t know what they are, that caused me to register independent.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Almost touches The axis of liberals - insanity That’s where the libertarians hover Spot on. The comical thing is, most of the Paultards don’t honestly know how similar they are to the snowflakes.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Adolph Hitler was also an "independent" with his self-proclaimed blitzkrieg; nope, you are a loser, lamer cross-walk guard destined towards no real good deed in life.
A soft, weak, self important... asshole.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Fuck off, 3rd world jungle boy. lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
——————/´ ¯/)
I think you have misspelled, it what you describe is a demorat; although I know how you could make the mistake as democrats seem individually to have similar characteristics. Allegedly a democrat is some one who believes in free speech, somewhat an oxymoron in the way they behave believing that unless you believe as they do you have no right to express an alternative opinion. There are things you cannot say such as; a baby has a right to live migrants must obey the law I can do what I like on my own property I can own a gun
You too. Go right to the heart of the Republican complaints on this board. Now imagine what life would be like if we eliminated, just wiped out, the three largest Democrat programs: Universal Public Education, Medicare and Social Security. Just those three consume the bulk of the government (local + state + federal) budgets of the United States. Poverty relief programs are a drop in the bucket compared to those three things: public education, Medicare and Social Security. If you do the soul searching and come to the conclusion: kill all three, you're a Republican - and you will also see THE issues that are THE reason why you'll always be in the minority. You'll say that it'e because the majority of the country are immoral and greedy and wrong. The majority of the country will say that you think the way you do because you're evil. This is THE battlefield on which Republican majorities always fall out of reach. It's THE reason why conservative Democrats don't change parties, and why Independents don't join the GOP. Republicans are just determined to reduce the middle class to poverty by not educating people and leaving them sick and destitute in old age, unable to retire, forced to work until they die - or to dump old parents into the houses of their children like dependents during the final decade of their lives. Republicans believe their approach to be morally right. Really it's just a love of money that exceeds the bounds of reason (the bulk of Republicans are also dependent on these programs to get their education, their retirement and their health care in retirement, but they seem to have convinced themselves that they can do without.) We lived without those things for thousands of years. Africa lives without them today. Our way, having these things, works better. The first country to adopt them was Germany, and Germany became a powerhouse that took the rest of Europe united, plus us, to bring to heel. We became a superpower and the world's dominant economy with these things. It is simply not true, objectively, that they weaken the country. But Republicans will go on believing it does until the day they die. Which is their right. But it's why they never are able to gain and keep majorities. It's why the Democrats have basically set the primary budgetary agenda since 1934. If Republicans got reasonable about necessary things, they could very easily become the dominant party - there's a whole lot wrong with Democrats. But - as we see right here on this board - Republican minds are not capable of being reasonable. There's something wrong with them. So all they can do is gain temporary advantages on emotional and hot button issues, win an election or two, dilly-dally around the edges, plunge us into debt with huge military spending and overseas adventure, but never be permitted to touch public education, Social Security and Medicare - the primary drivers of the budget - the true necessary target for them if they're going to slash taxes without blowing up the budget and, eventually, the economy, like they've done twice in my lifetime.
Allegedly a democrat is some one who believes in free speech, somewhat an oxymoron in the way they behave believing that unless you believe as they do you have no right to express an alternative opinion. There are things you cannot say such as; a baby has a right to live migrants must obey the law I can do what I like on my own property I can own a gun Yes. These and many other issues are the Democrats' Achilles' Heel. They are totalitarians on social and freedom issues. They want to control speech - unless it's theirs. They don't care about the freedom of religion or the right to keep and bear arms. They don't really care about the Constitution, except when it serves their purposes. They worship at the altar of abortion, and they have made public sexual deviancy into a civil right. They're not at all keen on law and order, or - post Vietnam - national defense. Because of all of these bad traits, Democrats are unable to get a lock on power. Independents like me find them disgusting. Because Republicans are terrible at economics and hate poor people, sick people, old people and anybody they have to spend money on, they're disgusting in their own right. And so the 28% or so who are Republican and the 32% or so who are Democrat take their positions in every election cycle, and the 40% of us who are Independents choose between two bad options, taking a "Shoot the wolf closest to the sled" approach. In general, the key Democratic social programs are so deeply entrenched that a few years of Republican rule - with substantial numbers of Democrats in the Senate and in the judiciary and administrative agencies to slow down or stop any sort of radical elimination program - cannot really touch them. So we can have relative financial irresponsibility under Republican rule but not have to endure the Democrat totalitarianism on religious, speech and personal liberty issues. Once the Republicans fuck up the economy again, as they always do with steep tax cuts uncoupled with spending cuts, we end up putting a Democrat back in their to right them ship. But the Democrats' odious school-marm tone costs them power once things have stabilied. If Democrats weren't such cunts they'd be the permanent majority. The same is true if Republicans didn't hate working people so much. But it is what it is. And that's why Independents decide all American elections, and why neither party gets a lock on power - although Democrats did largely have a lock during a half- century of building the Social Welfare state.
You consider that a true statement? You are a dirty liar. Like the democrat you are. You are not pro life. You were ready to vote for Hillary if Cruz won. Oh fuck you asshole. Liar.
You make stuff up. You know lying. Romney won the independents and lost the election. According to exit polls. You're not an independent. You are an anti christian catholic. You once said don't call you a Christian because you are not. Or something to that affect.
You are a good decent man. Honorable.
Comical.
I like to think so
They had a lock on power when people had nothing, now 64% of voters don't care enough to turn up, but listen to them howl about the result
When have the American people had nothing? This has always been a relatively rich, middle class country. Slaves had nothing, and immigrants fresh off the boat from Ireland and Italy, etc., often started with nothing, but pretty soon they had something, because they were able to easily get jobs and earn money, and farmers were able to easily buy land (something virtually impossible for the poor in crowded, cramped old Europe). People had something, but there was a gaping hole when they got hold or sick. Social Security covered that. The first universal public school system in the world, for both sexes, was Massachusetts Bay colony, and it was a fantastic success. New England may have been rustic and very much a farmer-and-tradesman society in the 1600s and 1700s, but it was also the most educated place on the planet, with a higher literacy rate than London or Paris or Rome. That New England model spread from there to the Midwest by way of the Northwest Ordnance, which partition one- thirty-sixth of the land specifically for public education purposes. Americans, more than any other people, have mostly always had something, mostly always been "middle class" by the standards of the time. They always "had something". And were relatively well-educated. It was a well-educated middle class population that voted for Social Security and Unemployment benefits and Medicare, because we decided we needed it.
I give you exhibit A: the Republican on his home turf, expressing the way he feels. This is why you are not, and never will be, the majority. You drip hatred. People don't like that. Whoever doesn't think like you is a liar and an asshole, according to you. When you Republicans do this, you drive people over to other side. It's why you're so hated.
If the KKK, NAZI's and the commie's had a child it would be a Demoncrat! They are still stuck in eugenics and this time its to murder off the white races. The religion they wish to destroy is Christianity because it gives hope to the people they are genociding. They are still using the politics of identity politics. Everything is pushed by intellectuals ie college professors. Its the same old shit, from the same old people just different day!
LIar. You are a liar because you lied and said republicans hate poor people. It is ok to call a liar a liar. Ok liar!
Libtards socialist and Paultards might false propagate this concept, to further their enabling agenda... and I’m sure I come off as a hater of poor people. The fact of the matter is, I HATE SHEEP that rely on others to survive, that don’t need to. I saw your post... good post.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
But you DO hate poor people. Their poverty is THEIR fault - THEIR laziness, THEIR irresponsibility - never mind disability or disease or old age or all of the other aspects of life that cause people to be of modest means. You call Social Security, Medicare and Universal Public Education THEFT, because they are paid for by taxes. Without those three pillars, the levels of destitution and suffering and poverty in America would rise to the levels that we had before those things, and to the levels of those parts in the world that still don't have those things. You say "Trust God." Well, yes, and God sent a Savior who TOLD US that we would be judged by how we looked after the old, the infirm, the sick, the orphan and the prisoner. Note, please, the PRISONER - the people who get punished, even if they deserve it: we are not exempt from taking care of them too, according to Jesus, and he's merely the Son of God. NOPE, you say, no social welfare - that's THEFT (what a lie!) and that's contrary to God (another whopping lie!), and then you round on me for saying what God explicitly said, and call ME the liar (yet ANOTHER lie!). And how you RAGE about it! How you kick at the goad! The truth is, the reason that your party stays in the minority is because of common sense and human charity - the NEED for social welfare, and the cool, dispassionate logic as to why - versus your raging hatred against those who support it. You call us thieves, liars, people who are against God. How you roar! And your fellow hyenas pick up the chorus with you, right on this thread. They agree: KILL Social Security! KILL Medicare and Medicaid! KILL Public Education! All that expensive stuff is paid for by taxes, and it's all THEFT! HATE the weak! Damned sheep! There's a great big stinking turd of a lie laid down by you guys right in the middle of the table. Everybody sees it, and it makes people draw back from you. It's WHY you're the minority, and will stay there.
Don'T forgeT AgainsT free speech Too ATTacking the news Puke Ps You're a personificaTion Of the euro model Top heavy sTaTisT FeeT of Toes of clay
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I’m don’t buy the whole European social model. Feet of clay? Not hardly.
You do know that was a depression in the US about 100 years ago, a US led depression, and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda. Of course you conveniently forgot that in the rush of nationalist fervour that acclaimed what the rich did in the eighteenth century that ripped your nation apart and again what they did in the nineteenth century. It seems the rich love to bathe in blood, the blood of the poor. You know what it is they always HAD, pride and it is not a virtue
Vic is all for the socialist agenda. He once said America should be taxed and spread our wealth to the whole world. He wants worldwide globalist welfare. He said so. FDR the socialist is practically a god to him. Vic thinks there hasn't been a greater president since FDR.
That's true. FDR ended the Great Depression, established the modern social welfare state, and won World War II WITHOUT destroying democracy, individual liberty and capitalism, as the other nations did. He faced the two worst existential threats to America since the Civil War, and mastered them, and the people voted for him four times on account of it. FDR was great. The near-greats right behind him were Eisenhower and Reagan. JFK would have been great - he was on the right track - but he was killed before he could do it. LBJ and Nixon could have been great, and did some good things. But their personal demons caught up with them. That may be the future of Trump as well. He is definitely doing a lot of positive things that are very good for America as a whole, but the seamy side of the man himself may come to engulf his Presidency, as was the case with Nixon, LBJ and Clinton. Truman, Ford, HW Bush, Clinton, W Bush and Obama - meh. Mediocre. Obama proved that a well-educated, articulate, smart, charismatic black man can be as incompetent and mediocre a President as a comparable white guy. Of course the Democrats demonize the Republicans, and the Republicans demonize the Democrats. And the rest of us sane people see them and judge both political mafia families to be hypocritical and blind to their own faults.
Capitalists ended the depression. That prick FDR extended it. He also stole the peoples gold. He was a worthless pile of shit just like his cunt wife.
Why yes, yes I DO know that there was a worldwide Depression starting in 1929. To blame the Depression entirely on the US is quite blind really: the destruction of Europe in World War I, Revolution and civil war all across the East of Europe, and the trauma of German economic collapse thanks to war reparations and hyperinflation - imposed on Germany by the victorious European powers through the Versailles Treaty (which America did not ratify) - these were the primary drivers of European misery. The American stock market crashed - not for the first time, not for the last time. The reason that was a worldwide depression was primarily because the Europeans were a bunch of cunts, earnestly desiring to devour each other and playing Risk with the world map (British Empires, French Empires, exclusive economic zones, holding down India and Indochina, and holding down Germany). The US withdrew into the Isolation we had ALWAYS PRACTICED since the dawn of our republic. We had come out of it ONCE, just once, to save France and Britain from being overrun by the Germans in 1918. We won the war for the West, but then were ignored in the peace treaty - Germany was punished at Versailles, very much against the will of the United States. So we refused to ratify the Treaty and went home, embittered. We returned to our traditional posture of isolation. It was BECAUSE OF the disregard of the United States at Versailles that the people of US wanted nothing to do with the European War when it broke out again in 1939. France and Britain had relied on us to save them in 1918, but then ignored our wishes at Versailles. Therefore, the American people opted to stay out of European affairs for good. The fall of France in 1940 and the neutrality of the USA during the London Blitz and the long siege of Britain in 1940 and 1941 was the direct result of British and French arrogance at the end of World War I. We came to their rescue in 1918, and they ignored our wishes at the end of that war, imposing their own will, and setting themselves up for a repeat war with Germany - a war that we had no intention of participating in. France and England made their bed in 1918. They were the world empires. Let them lie in it in 1939 and 1940 and 1941. That was the American view. Truth is, the US probably would have NEVER entered the European war at all. After Pearl Harbor the United States declared war on Japan, not Germany. It was Hitler, the madman, who dragged the US into the European war on December 10, 1941, by declaring war on the United States. We didn't declare war on Germany - Pearl Harbor did not trigger war with Germany. The Germans, stupidly, declared war on us. If Hitler had not done so, the US would have concentrated on Japan and made quicker work of the Japanese, and may never have become involved in war against Germany at all. So, this whole business of the US nationalist fervor, and US-led depression and all of that claptrap. Newsflash: in 1929 the US was NOT responsible for running "the world system". The British and French had very arrogantly and confidently pushed us off the stage at Versailles and assumed the role of world co-hegemons. WE did the heavy lifting at the end of the war, stopping the Ludendorff Offensive after the Germans had already broken through the British and French lines. Had the US Army and Marine Corps not been present, Paris would have fallen and Germany would have won that war. We won the war, but we immediately lost the peace. Clemenceau famously said "Wilson bores me with his 14 points. The Almighty only needed 10 commandments." It's funny, and arrogant, and archetypical of the patent disdain with which the English and the French held the Americans at the end of 1918. We were nothing but muscle to them, muscle they were happy to use for their purposes but, having defeated the German threat with American arms, the British and the French had no intention of listening to the Americans, or sharing power, or allowing the US to expand freely into their colonial markets. Nope. They reassumed their "world leadership", and sent the American diplomats home, tail between our legs. The US won the war but was diplomatically humiliated by Britain and France after the war. They humiliated us, and they humiliated the Germans too. But they had to live with the Germans. We went home and stayed there. And they provoked the Germans by what they did, and proved themselves militarily inferior to the Germans once again, and had to rely on American rescue once again, but this time the Americans, rightly, did not come to the rescue of Britain and France. France was overwhelmed. And Britain was bombed flat, and forced to fight alone until she was utterly bankrupted. When the Americans finally came in, only after the Germans declared war on us, Britain was a convenient aircraft carrier, and the British Army and Navy became to us what the American Army and Marines had been to them in the previous war: muscle to be ultimately commanded on the chessboard by Americans. In short, we LEARNED from our humiliation in World War I, and stayed out this time, until France was destroyed and Russia was ruined and Britain was bankrupt, and then we came in, as a colossus, at the end of the war, and have ruled the world ever since. American-led Depression? No. Britain and France were the leaders of the world in 1929, not us. The Americans had a stock market bust, as had happened many times before. The Depression was worldwide because the British and French were cunts to the Germans after World War I - very much AGAINST the will of the Americans - and crashed the German economy with their reparations demands - the Americans did not demand reparations. But Britain and France were too weak to hold down Germany or Russia, so they faced the rise of the Nazis and the Soviets, and had nothing like the power necessary to stop either. Meanwhile, the Americans were back home in their own continent AS THEY ALWAYS HAD BEEN, taking care of their own local affairs AS WE HAD ALWAYS, and protecting our markets AS WE ALWAYS HAD for over a century. There was nothing NEW about American behavior. What WAS new was that the British and French were not strong enough or rich enough to be able to actually rule the world, or to contain either the German OR Soviet threat, or the Japanese threat in the East. They NEEDED American muscle, but they were arrogant cunts who would not share power. They expected America to serve their interests but not let our own will be the rule. They isolated us at Versailles, so we went home. And we did not come back until they were all destroyed. Then we came in, picked up the pieces, and have not shared power ever since. We won World War I but lost the peace at Versailles. So we returned to our native posture of isolation and local development, and did not enter World War II at all. We let the world burn itself down. The world - the Japanese and Germans - dragged us into the war by declaring war on us. When we came in, we conquered them both, and imposed the new world order afterwards. The US did not cause the Great Depression. We merely won it. Europe went Communist, National Socialist and Imperialist. American preserved democracy and capitalism, with just enough social welfare to prevent us from following the stupid path of Europeans and Asians. So we emerged the victor. That's what happened. Could it all have been avoided? Sure. In two ways. One was for the US to stay out of World War I. Then the Germans would have conquered France in 1918, thereby rejuvenating the German economy and allowing the Germans to transfer forces en-masse to the Middle East to shore up their ally Turkey. The UK would have had to sue for peace or lose their empire. The result: a German-dominated Europe, which would have gotten on pretty well with the USA, probably. The other was for the English and French to respect American wishes at Versailles and not impose crippling reparations on Germany. Then the Americans would have stayed allied and engaged, the German economy would not have collapsed, and there would have been no rise of national socialism in Germany. The borders of Free Europe would be pretty much where they are now, and the USA would have been integrated into the structure. You would have had the equivalent of NATO with much more equal partners: the USA, the British Empire (intact), the French Empire (intact), a German Republic, and a free Eastern Europe that never would have fallen under the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those things happened. So the US went home, Britain and France ruled the world for about 20 more years, then lost it all, the US was dragged back out of our shell by Japan and Germany. We beat both of them, and ended up in 2018 where we COULD HAVE ended up in 1920, except that today it's the USA alone as the hegemon, with Britain and France and Germany and Italy and Canada and Australia and the other little countries all part of a grand alliance headed by the USA. It could have been a union of equals, but Britain and France refused to respect the Americans in 1918. Now here you are blaming us for the Great Depression. WE didn't cause it. The British and French did, by imposing reparations on Germany. Nor did we cause World War II. What we did is win both the Depression and the Second World War and essentially conquered the world. That's why you resent us so much and retroject blame upon us that properly falls primarily on the British Empire and the French Empire. Not guilty. We didn't do it. We didn't start it. We didn't cause it. We didn't want to be part of any of it. We wanted to be left alone in our hemisphere. The world dragged us in against our will. So we conquered it. We were able to do so because our political philosophy and economic and military structures are all superior to anything that Europe or Asia ever came up with. That's why we won and they lost. That's why we rule the world, and always will for the rest of our lives, and our children's lives, and our great- grandchildren's lives. The Pax Americana is a good thing, on balance. Except for our enemies. Our enemies choose to be our enemies. It would be better for everybody to just submit. Makes commerce flow better, and that raises all boats.
Capitalists caused it with an unregulated stock market and laissez-faire refusal to intervene with any sort of systematic unemployment relief. FDR was able to rearrange the system sufficiently to save capitalism AND democracy, no thanks to the capitalists who resisted him. They also resisted US preparation for World War II, but FDR outfoxed them.
The Federal Reserve was the cause simpleton.
Unregulated markets were the cause of the crash in the US. German meltdown was the cause of the depth and width in Europe. Federal Reserve policies made recovery more difficult in the USA.
The shout of every tyrant, and tyrant you are. So you took your bat and went home after WW1, you didn't like the fact that those who had done the heavy lifting for four years wanted to call the shots and make sure Germany could not rise again. Unfortunately they we unsuccessful and you still have your knickers in a knot about it. The Soviets did as much to win the war (WWII) in Europe as you did afterall they had more to pay Germany back for. You did not loose millions in either war so stop griping. Your manifest destiny is not to rule the world
Not only are people sacrificing their children, they are killing the "firstborn" in over 60% of cases. The best and the brightest children are invariably the first born.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
The only thing I agree with is forcing Hospitals to treat injured and critically sick people. Not children with a cough, or kids with a running nose. Social Security - Medicare - Universal Public Schooling - Medicaid - Housing initiatives for the poor - Food stamp and school meal programs for the poor. - Student aid - Home heating assistance for the elderly - Disability benefits - Unemployment benefits. SS? is a waste of money. Medicare? it is a joke for the elderly. I know about both because I am forced to be on one, and it is nearly as bad as the VA. The other? I am getting rich now baby.... Public Schooling? Mothers can do a better job than school teachers. Medicaid? NOPE, get a job and pay for your own care. Housing? again, bunk with someone who wishes to be the host for your parasitic ass. Student Aid? Take out a loan, or work your way through school. Home heating assistance? Isn't that what children are for? Disability benefits? Yessir, lets pay $2-4 an hour to a government board so they can give us a little bit back when we are hurt. I can self finance my own insurance, at about $50 a month instead of $320 a month. Ditto for Unemployment. It is called being frugal and saving up for a rainy day.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
It was. We do.
Only in your mind, 95% of the world says you don't, so I'll go with the numbers
Oil is traded in dollars. Europe, Japan, North America look to the US for defense and for leadership. The world financial system depends on us, and the UN is located in our principal city. We're not the British Empire or the French Empire or the Soviets, or the Third Reich. It is not important to us that people get down on their knees and perform acts of submission to America the Gweat and Tewwible. What we have required only is orderly markets, the dollar as the currency of energy exchange, and that countries not pull a Cuba or a North Korea, or a Soviet Union, and try to upset or overturn the world order. We're the hegemon, not the dictator. Worldwide there is a Pax Americana, and it has been better than any other thing for keeping the peace so that everybody who joins it - everybody - is more prosperous year after year. Things get better with long peace, and they have. even in Africa and South America. Economies grow like crops in the field - they need peace, long periods of peace - to develop. We have provided that without our nuclear force, our Navy, our Marines, our Army and our Air Force. There have been the rogue nations: the Soviets, the Red Chinese, the North Koreans, the Communist Vietnamese, the Muslim jihadis, the Cubans, the Venesuelans, etc., who have tried to secede from the world order or to impose their new, very inferior paradigm. Those nations have had to withstand the siege of the American legions, and almost all have crumbled under the pressure or been isolated into poverty-stricken little cul-de-sacs whence they can no longer disturb the general peace, and within which they suffer endlessly, and will continue to do so until they submit to the rule of law and get back in line with the rest of nations - stop killing and torture and uphold the world peace. That's the world system as it has existed since 1945, when the US assumed the role of world hegemon, the first ever, and did it with aplomb. Know why we're so good at it? Because we're not an ethnic state. Our people come from everywhere - we are a microcosm (not a very micro one: second largest country in the world by solid land area (you can't live on a lake), and third most populous, with the largest economy by far, with the strongest military - so everybody in the world has a stake in America. And America, in turn, has a substantial population that understands every corner of the world better than any other would-be hegemon. Britain and France bankrupted themselves trying to hold onto an empire held by force. We've gotten richer from a system in which we on'y rule ourselves, but in which we set the basic rules for everybody else. Ours is not the British or French or Russian Imperial system, but the Roman clientela system of Augustus, and it works brilliantly - not just for us, but for the Europeans, the Australasians, the free East Asians and the Latin Americans. People grouse because they want more, more, more - and the defeated former imperial powers still resent the fact that they no longer rule the roost. But the reason they don't rule the roost is because their systems of organisation were inferior too ours. The English, French and Russians ultimately ran a race-based, culture based empire. America runs an economics, energy and security based empire, not one with an ethnic core. Ethnic empires have a weakness: there is a large body of mediocre white ethnics in any imperial county, and those mediocre white ethnics get in their head that the military and imperial glories of their empires are somehow extensions of themselves. So they smugly favor their cultures, but most people in the world prefer their OWN cultures, and really don't give a damn what strange ethnic practices and bad food that working class people in some corner of Europe have. The Europeans TRIED to export their cultures, but only the Spanish and Portuguese really succeeded at it, and that was primarily not the Spanish or Portuguese culture that they exported, but the Catholic Church that came with them - and THAT had an assist from Heaven (the Virgin of Guadelupe came independently to the Indians, and they went over to HER and her son, not the Spanish - they threw out the Spanish soon enough, but kept God, their own way. And now they're Pope. Go figure. You're from some part of the former British Empire, aren't you? The whole notion of "heavy lifting". Why would the Americans do the "heavy lifting" to maintain the British and French empires? Those were not things that were good for us, or good for the bulk of the people who were colonised. We came into World War I because the Germans, in their frantic efforts to defeat England, torpedoed American ships, killed a lot of Americans, and tried to stir up Mexico against the USA. If the Germans had not done that, we never would have come into the First War, and the Germans would have won it. Learning nothing from the experience, the Germans declared war on us AGAIN in 1941, and thereby sealed their fate. It did not matter to the USA whether France, England, Germany or Russia dominated Europe. We came in because WE were attacked. The German (and British, and French, and Russian) mind was very proud. They were accustomed to beating up on other people with their arms. But let's face it, beating up on savages in Africa or Pacific Islands or the ignorant heart and fringe of Asia was easy. it got into the heads of European leaders and caused them to all mistake the industrial and economic superiority which let them put modern armies in the field for a cultural superiority. This hubris died on the battlefields of the Somme, Verdun and the Passchendaele. Among advanced states, God was on the side of the bigger battalions. The English were not better soldiers than the Germans or the French. Nor were the Germans better than the English or the French. Nor, as the second war demonstrated, were the Germans better than Russians. It was purely a matter of economic might being able to create industrial might that could turn out guns and ammunition and transport and tanks and planes. Economic power equals military power among advanced nations. Neither the Germans nor the French nor the British wanted to believe this. They still don't. They still - particularly the English - believe that there is something quintessential to Englishman that made them master, and they mourn that lost. But they were never master. They conquered hinterlands filled with savages. In Europe itself, they were never the dominant military power. Either France or Germany or Russia was, depending on who was industrialised and mobilsed. Now, the USA was not a part of that system. We were apart, developing our own empire internally. Sure, there were scuffles with caudillos here and there in the near abroad of the Caribbean, but those things were temporary: we didn't set up an American Empire on any scale. We set up what would today be called a "neocolonial empire" - a set of states that were independent and self-governing and ruled by their people, but who respected a norm of trade and international law that fit American standards. That's the American model of empire - it is very different from, and much more durable and successful (because profitable for both sides of the equation) than the European empires. Europe, raging with ethnic pride, put its nations to the test on the battlefield. They all failed. The weaker nations fell to the stronger ones, for a time, until the strong ones settled into lines of attrition, where neither could do anything decisive. In World War I that line of attrition was in Flanders and Northern France. In World War II it was the English Channel, the North African desert in Egypt, and the plains of Russia. And then, both times, war planners in arrogant ethnic empires - the German and the Japanese (in the second war) failed to comprehend the basic math: economic power equals industrial power equals military power - and the Americans are vastly more powerful economically than any little country in Europe or than Japan. One listens to Hitler's speech declaring war on the United States on December 10, 1941. He cites the great achievements of the Teutonic race, and speaks of the weakness of the Americans, polluted and Judaised. And he, and they really believed it. The Europeans REALLY BELIEVED that their little ethnic cultures - German, Russian, British, French, Italian, etc., or the Japanese at their end - really, truly believed that these little ethnic filips, their languages and foods and customs of which they were so militantly proud, actually gave them some sort of superiority on the battlefields of war and of the mind. It is mind-bogglingly childish. They really believed, in early days (and in World War II in the Japanese case) that their cute little religions with their gods would help them prevail. But God, the real one, is on the side of the biggest battalions. And America was the biggest by far. We had a continent, and we filled it with individuals from every culture who were more interested in making a way forward for themselves and their family than in some ethnic or religious cohesion. They chose individual achievement over the Gods and their Countries, and came to a place where they had a shot of doing it. And those huge collective numbers DID make a superior economy, with superior innovation, which is to say, American freedom produces superior intellects for engineering and economics, and the huge numbers and scale of the resources produced a massive economy. In 1917 and in 1941, the United States was invincible. VASTLY more powerful economically than Germany or Japan - or England, or France, or Russia. With VASTLY greater manpower to call upon. So, the question is, what were the Germans (or the Japanese) thinking? To declare war on America, to PROVOKE America by torpedoing our ships and killing our people? The Europeans REALLY BELIEVED that, somehow, they had some sort of innate superiority of organisation or culture or...something...that would allow a country one quarter the sise of the United States to declare war on America and win. It was childish hubris, mind-bogglingly arrogant, and stupid - bone stupid, OF COURSE the Germans and the Japanese got crushed. OF COURSE the Soviet Union never had a hope in hell of defeating the United States. Why they ever thought they could is what should be examined. The British and French realised that America was out of their league in warfare back in the 1860s, when they so wanted to come in on the side of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, but they saw the sise of the American Armies, and the weaponry, and the vast logistical supplies. They saw that their own Crimean-War era armies would be swamped. They also saw that fleet of hundreds of ironclad monitors pouring out of American foundries in the north and strangling the life out of every port. The British calculated what would happen if they sent their beautiful wooden sailing fleet against a line of ironclad monitors with their huge rifled guns: they would have been pounded to driftwood and they knew it. The British Army was small - it would have been torn up on the Civil War battlefields by the million-man American armies with their repeating rifles, and then the Americans would have sent their modern battle-hardened armies to take Canada for good measure. The French got out of Mexico as soon as the American Civil War was over, because the American President made it clear he was going to march those big battle hardened armies down and throw them out if they didn't. The British and French both knew, as early as the 1860s, that they could not wage war against the USA - too big, too strong. So they didn't provoke us. They colonised Africa and Asia, and stayed out of the Americas, rather than provoke the American behemoth. Smart. The Germans, though - how stupid could they be? They were already struggling against Russia, whom they managed to beat, but against France and Britain. They were locked in a stalemate that maybe - MAYBE they could break. How could their leaders look across the ocean at the world's greatest economic power and think "They're trading with the British and French. Let's sink their ships and make a deal with Mexico to start a war with them." What the fuck? Germans are supposed to be smart - and that's just bone stupid. It could not result in anything other than the Americans getting pissed off, and standing up, huge, and squashing little Germany like a bug. Which is what happened. Having experienced that twenty years before, what sort of mad, raging distemper was there in Hitler and the German government that thought that gratuitously declaring war on the world's greatest industrial power, when the Germans already were straining against England and Russia, could result in anything other than calamity? They really, really believed that there was something so special about their culture that it could beat the bigger battalions. Worse, the Germans and Japanese (and everybody else) had inferior technology. And, we might note, precisely BECAUSE of the ethnic chauvinism of Europeans (not just Germans), the Einsteins and Enrico Fermis and Oppenheimers were over here, Americans by choice - because of what America is - open to all races - building the atomic bomb, for which there was no answer. The Germans were literally not intelligent enough to build the atomic bomb. Why? Because their greatest scientists were Jewish, and the Germans were so obsessed with their culture that they drove the Jews out of the country - to America - where their minds helped make America world hegemon. The one mind in Europe who probably COULD have gotten them to the bomb, Neils Bohr, was a Dane - and the Germans had invaded his country. He hated the Third Reich and was never, ever going to help them get to the bomb. He DID send them off on goose chases and hinder their efforts - and because they were not smart enough to understand, they had no way of knowing that he was intelligently and maliciously slowing them down at every turn. You're almost certainly sitting in some former English colony. You're English speaking and you think your culture and its history is the cat's meow. You think you're inherently "better" than the Americans: more educated, more "civilised", more cultured. And to a certain extent that is probably true - you're probably more cultured, you're probably better educated, in a formal sense, than most Americans, and to the extent that good manners and etiquette consitute civilisation, you're probably more "civilised". Why, then, is America the world hegemon and not your beloved British Empire? Becayse our systems are better. Our culture is MUCH better at absorbing and assimilating everybody. Because we didn't WANT to be an empire - we wanted to develop internally and be left alone. The world wouldn't leave us alone. Neither Germany nor Japan needed to have a war with the USA. They could have avoided war, forever, by not shooting at our ships, not declaring war on us. But they could not resist it. They went into the cave and poked the bear, so the bear came out of the cave and killed them. The English were on the right side of things in those wars, and because they were smart enough not to tangle with America a third time and stayed out of the American Civil War, the Americans had no animus towards them. But the Irish did. And the Indians did. And the Arabs. And the Africans. Everywhere that England used ITS economic might to arm British people to go and stomp on and rule natives, they produced natives who actively disliked them, and who wanted them out. The World Wars bankrupted England, to the point that England could not have held onto its Empire if it had wanted to. India went peacefully by choice - the British knew they could not hold it, so they negotiated a departure and left on peaceful terms. Had they not decided to retreat in good order, the Indians would have rebelled and overwhelmed them - there was no gas in the tank for England to even attempt to hold onto India. The French, rather stupidly, DID try to hold onto their colonies by force. So they lost an Army in Indochina. With the conquest of Italy, Germany and Japan, and the exhaustion of Britain and France, the US was on the world stage, and never left. But we didn't take over and rule as the British or French ruled their empire. No, we ran, and run, the world empire the same way we ran the Caribbean: let people be self-governing, but protect property and make sure that countries respect the international system. Neocolonialism is much more effective than European-style colonialism. The world can learn things from America, and has. One of the most important things that intelligent leaders - German, Japanese, English, French - have learned, is that a rising tide raises all boats, and that cooperation with America in the world system that America heads is MUCH BETTER for the English, French, German and Japanese people than trying to fight it out of some chauvinist pride. Also, the experience of the two world wars and the depression and the loss of empires has taught the Europeans and Japanese is that their old overweening ethnic and cultural pride - their old nationalism - was really pretty dumb and self-defeating. YOU are displaying it here. in that characteristic Anglo-Saxon sotto voce passive aggressive fashion. Truth is, the whole English speaking world is a LOT better off economically, in terms of peace and prosperity, down to an individual level, with American hegemony. You personally have benefited from it tremendously. Britain was never strong enough, rich enough, organixed enough or tolerant and multicultural enough to ever have pulled it off. America is the only country that could possibly do this. If you think about it intelligently, you know this. America didn't just fall out of the sky a superpower, it was built into one BECAUSE people from everywhere came here, and build an economic behemoth BECAUSE they were freer than anywhere else. And under American neo- colonial hegemony, you're left free in your own country - something the British could NEVER tolerate, being narrow-minded know-it-all prigs. Britain could not protect Australia from the Japanese, and neither could the Australians themselves. America was NECESSARY. And the price of protection was not submitting to American rule in the same way that the price of dealing with England always was. We are much better masters than the English, and much more tolerant people - even than you are - and that's why we are the most suited to rule the world system - because we don't actually think we're better than you, wherever you are. We just want to get along and trade. Govern yourselves. Speak what you want. THAT is much much more free and open, and treating you much more as an equal than the English ever did, or ever COULD, because in the end the English are still Europeans, and Europeans still think they are the best at all things - and only the Americans have the hands-off disinterest to allow the Europeans to go on living in their cultural fantasies within an American empire, and simply not care about it. The Soviets and the Chinese, like the Germans and British and French before them, could NEVER tolerate that cultural laissex-faire. The only people who can pull it off is the Americans, because it comes natural to us, because of who we are. You just have to resort to that Englishness, and cling to it - and resent us on account of that. It's not because of the way we rule the world - which we obviously DO - we do a much better job of it than the English did. You've never been threatened under our watch. But you're British, and still believe that to be best. Now take me. I'm French, and Scandinavian, and Basque, and Dutch, and Irish and Scottish. And my wife is from the French Caribbean so our daughter is all that I am plus Carib and West African and French from the other side. We speak three languages in this house. What culture shall I favor? The French are "better"? Than the Scandinavians? Why? Or vice- versa. The British are better than the Irish? Why? No they're not. Nor vice-versa. All of those petty little ethnic passions of the old countries. How can an American carry them on? Shall we pit our grandparents all against each other? It's nuts. It's petty - and all that - all that baggage over which Europe burnt itself down twice last century, and that still forms the basis of the animus you feel towards us Americans because we're not, well, British - and therefore not SUITABLE to be the rulers - that baggage is not in our minds. We don't have it. And that's why we are the only people suited to rule the world. You can't do it - you're too ethnically chauvinistic. We do it well, because really we don't care about that stuff. We care about what's efficient, what makes money, and what keeps the peace. Yes, there's an American chauvinism, but it's contained within America, and it never sent us out to conquer the world like it did you English, or the French or Germans or Italians or Japanese. Rather, we were (and are) content to sit at home and tend to our business. it was the world that came into our cave and dragged us out to fight. The Germans and Japanese poked the bear and got. well, the bear. Blame them, not us. We rule the world, and it is better for everybody that we do, even you, precisely because we are not like you, and don't feel these resentments you do. Those resentments in you are driven by a cultural chauvinism and wounded pride. Americans are proud - but then we WON. You didn't. Our pride is based on achievement. But it isn't particularly overweening. It gets pricked when folks like you have to make an untrue point about the way the world system works, simply because your bad old ethnic chauvinism cannot tolerate being one of the equals, in a system that your culture doesn't rule. Britain never could have taken over the world. No culture can rule the world. But common sense economic principles, governed by law, based on the concept of human equality, and backed by the armed force of a superpower without an imperial culture - that HAS taken over the world, including all of the English parts of it. That's why you can now live in peace with the French, German, Italian. Spanish, Russian and Japanese parts of it, and not be worried about India rebelling or whatever. That's the genius of American non-rule. Your Britishness could never have gotten you here, but YOU TOO are better off as an equal of the Germans and the French, and the Americans, on the playing field set by America. The Pax Americana is as good for you as it is for me. You should appreciate it more. I know it's hard, because it's not in your DNA. That's why it has to be Americans that run it. We're the only ones without a stake in the 4000-year-old cultural game. I'm related to half of Europe . Whose side am I on? When your mother and your father fight, you don't want one to kill the other. You want them to stop fighting.
pardon me if I don't bow in prayer to New York or Washington but I don't worship the dollar
you mean you think you have actually been there? How come the technology got lost?
We're not British. We don't expect you to bow and worship anything about us. Rather, we expect you to avidly pursue your own interests within the worldwide blanket of security and law that our armed forces, in cooperation with our allies, provide around the world. You need cast nary a thought to the fleet, out there over the horizon, keeping the world free and safe so that you doing your thing, and everybody else doing theirs, cause commerce to bloom and the whole world to thrive through commerce. We'll only get in your country's face if you've gotta build nuclear weapons and deprive people of their economic liberties, because economically free people pursuing their self-interests makes the whole world better. Therefore, some local barbarian destroying property rights and cutting off people from their economic liberties affects all of us, and we need to cut that cancer out. You're a happily functioning cog in a well-oiled machine. The machine doesn't need your worship to thrive, just your avid pursuit of your own self-interest.
This cog doesn't function that well and it would be a fifth wheel in your society. The fact is your fleet doesn't guarantee anything because believe it or not, most people aren't interested in you. You are the greatest bunch of stuffups the world has ever seen. an accident looking for a place to happen
Yes we've been to the moon. But that wasn't the point. Hint the lyrics.
and a great experience in going nowhere it was, obviously not to be repeated soon. When you have banished poverty from the Earth come and tell me of you achievements
7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. I would have thought you knew that. You should downsize your house and vehicle(s). And give it to the poor. That way you won't be a hypocrite. "For in the way you judge you will be judged."
Poverty will never be “banished” from this planet. EVER. You over senisitized sheeple just can’t wrap your fucking head around the fact that some people will live a long time, be wealthy as fuck... healthy till they drop. Then some will die at birth, get cancer before they’re a teen... and litter society with their smelly homelessness... people dying young, being poor scumbags is a NECESSITY for the circle of life. Stop spending MY money for the unachievable goals that make you feel better about your wealth. GFY, sheep.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
"Live a quite life". This I do, my house is not large, nor is my vehicle and I do not live in a lavish style but I don't expect those who do to understand
there is a place people like you should go
I don't think you should sell anything. I was just trying to say there will always be poor people. That doesn't mean we should hold off on exploring space forever because there will always be poor people.
Yeah... it’s called self reliance... leave me the fuck alone. I don’t need or want your help or compassion... and don’t ask me for nothing. Survive on your own or fucking die. That’s the place for me.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
When the war on poverty started it was 12-15% of the population considered to be in poverty. Guess what it is now? You right it's still 12-15%. When the war started we had right about 200M citizens, now we have about 325M. Which means we have a lot more people in poverty now than when the war started, don't you just love what the government does with your taxpayer money!! Very little of what gets spent actually goes for job creating or skills training so what does that tell you?
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#2. To: A K A Stone, recycled bushbot, mittens fanboi, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
> 
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
boris
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#5. To: buckeroo (#1)
I loathe democrats just a little bit more than republicans.
#6. To: GrandIsland (#5)
You are a filthy paultard liar.
#7. To: GrandIsland (#5)
(Edited)
boris
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
the Republican position is often so repulsive.
#9. To: BorisY, Fire Island NYC Republicans (#7)
#10. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#11. To: hondo68 (#9)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
1) Favor policies that provide a safety net for the poor
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Social Security - Medicare
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Housing initiatives for the poor - Food stamp and school meal programs for the poor. -
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Republicans generally oppose the social safety net.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
You go on being a Republican. Democrats will go on being Democrats. I'll go on being Independent
#18. To: BorisY (#7)
The outer axis of sanity
#19. To: GrandIsland (#17)
I’m an independent.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#0)
What is the textbook definition of a democrat
#21. To: buckeroo (#19)
#22. To: GrandIsland (#21)
—————--/—-/
—————-/—-/
———--/´¯/'--'/´¯`•_
———-/'/--/—-/—--/¨¯
——--('(———- ¯~/ '--' )
———————-'—--/
———-''————_-•´
———————--(
#23. To: GrandIsland, Bingo Bango Bongo Independents, Fred Mertz, buckeroo (#21)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#25. To: GrandIsland (#17)
Do some soul searching.
#26. To: paraclete (#24)
(Edited)
I know how you could make the mistake as democrats seem individually to have similar characteristics.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
Because Republicans are terrible at economics and hate poor people, sick people, old people and anybody they have to spend money on, they're disgusting in their own right.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
But it is what it is. And that's why Independents decide all American elections
#29. To: paraclete (#24)
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
nd the 40% of us who are Independents
#31. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
#33. To: paraclete (#32)
They had a lock on power when people had nothing, now 64% of voters don't care enough to turn up, but listen to them howl about the result
#34. To: A K A Stone (#27)
You are a dirty liar. Like the democrat you are. You are not pro life. You were ready to vote for Hillary if Cruz won. Oh fuck you asshole. Liar.
#35. To: A K A Stone, All (#0)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Whoever doesn't think like you is a liar
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)
(Edited)
You are a liar because you lied and said republicans hate poor people.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
(Edited)
You are a liar because you lied and said republicans hate poor people.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
(Edited)
boris
#40. To: BorisY (#39)
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
Americans, more than any other people, have mostly always had something,
#42. To: paraclete (#41)
and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#42)
(Edited)
Vic thinks there hasn't been a greater president since FDR.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
#45. To: paraclete (#41)
(Edited)
You do know that was a depression in the US about 100 years ago, a US led depression, and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda. Of course you conveniently forgot that in the rush of nationalist fervour that acclaimed what the rich did in the eighteenth century that ripped your nation apart and again what they did in the nineteenth century. It seems the rich love to bathe in blood, the blood of the poor.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#44)
Capitalists ended the depression.
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47)
The Federal Reserve was the cause simpleton.
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
(Edited)
It would be better for everybody to just submit.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
#52. To: paraclete (#49)
Your manifest destiny is not to rule the world
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
#54. To: paraclete (#53)
#55. To: Vicomte13, paraclete (#54)
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
#58. To: paraclete (#56)
(Edited)
pardon me if I don't bow in prayer to New York or Washington but I don't worship the dollar
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
You're a happily functioning cog in a well-oiled machine.
#60. To: paraclete (#57)
#61. To: A K A Stone (#60)
Yes we've been to the moon
#62. To: paraclete (#61)
#63. To: paraclete (#61)
(Edited)
When you have banished poverty from the Earth
#64. To: A K A Stone (#62)
#65. To: GrandIsland (#63)
#66. To: paraclete (#64)
#67. To: paraclete (#65)
there is a place people like you
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66)
(Edited)
I was just trying to say there will always be poor people.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]