DCNightHawk Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 hahah thats pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Great post.Those democRATS look like vampires and swampdonkies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Great post.Those democRATS look like vampires and swampdonkies. Right just like...uh...."vampires and swampdonkies." :twitch: :twitch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Right just like...uh...."vampires and swampdonkies.":twitch: :twitch: Vampires=Sucking the blood of the middle class and the poor. Swampdonkies=butt ugly. Got it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Vampires=Sucking the blood of the middle class and the poor.Swampdonkies=butt ugly. Got it? So much anger. You know, if you really thought so lowly of us, you'd be a little more tactful. Your unbridled, uncalled for hatred shows that you're scared. Scared that you're wrong, scared that we're right, and scared that 2 years from now, we'll have a chance to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadets08 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Great Post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Great post.Those democRATS look like vampires and swampdonkies. wOoOOoOOoOOOow. LOLOLOLOLOL this guy is too much. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound like I condone his post, but that made me laugh so hard. lol.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 So much anger. You know, if you really thought so lowly of us, you'd be a little more tactful. Your unbridled, uncalled for hatred shows that you're scared. Scared that you're wrong, scared that we're right, and scared that 2 years from now, we'll have a chance to prove it. History has always proven you wrong , always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Am I really suppose to believe that "Dub-ya" is faithful to that plain Jane known as Laura Bush? Especially during his nose candy and drinking days. Why would you even add her to the pictures? I'd throw up in my mouth if I saw her in anything less than a pants suit. Also I agree, men that vote Republican probably would use this as their basis for voting that way. They don't understand much more than that. You probably voted for Bush because of all the costumes you saw him in, cowboy, jet fighter,...ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Lets not forget woof -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 History has always proven you wrong , always. Always? Always? In the 1860s, when the conservatives wanted to keep slavery going, was my side wrong? In the 1960s, when the USSR was putting nukes on Cuba, was my side wrong in exercising caution? Would your current philosophy of "kill your enemies" work? Certainly the liberals weren't wrong in bringing our economy back to life with the New Deal, were they? The list could go on and on. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Always? Always? In the 1860s, when the conservatives wanted to keep slavery going, was my side wrong? In the 1960s, when the USSR was putting nukes on Cuba, was my side wrong in exercising caution? Would your current philosophy of "kill your enemies" work? Certainly the liberals weren't wrong in bringing our economy back to life with the New Deal, were they? The list could go on and on.:doh: How do you think America found out that Cuba was aiming Nukes at us.Would you consider that un constitutional also.You be the same person saying we have no right spying on another country because its unconstitutional.Very 2 faced. Yeah my "current philosophy"is kill your enemies.Dont be a cop out or twist my words ,which is a bad habit libs have today.I said I belive in killing terrorists ,all terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 How do you think America found out that Cuba was aiming Nukes at us.Would you consider that un constitutional also.You be the same person saying we have no right spying on another country because its unconstitutional.Very 2 faced.Yeah my "current philosophy"is kill your enemies.Dont be a cop out or twist my words ,which is a bad habit libs have today.I said I belive in killing terrorists ,all terrorists. You didn't answer his question. You said history always proves liberals to be wrong, yet he stated 2 or 3 pretty solid points that prove you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 You didn't answer his question. You said history always proves liberals to be wrong, yet he stated 2 or 3 pretty solid points that prove you wrong. JFK wasnt a liberal,he was a democrat.Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 How do you think America found out that Cuba was aiming Nukes at us.Would you consider that un constitutional also.You be the same person saying we have no right spying on another country because its unconstitutional.Very 2 faced. Yeah my "current philosophy"is kill your enemies.Dont be a cop out or twist my words ,which is a bad habit libs have today.I said I belive in killing terrorists ,all terrorists. No, I wouldn't say that's unconstitutional. Because it's not. It's clear to me you have no idea what the Constitution says or deals with. Dude, killing terrorists isn't that simple. Well, it is if you make it that simple, but in doing so, you run into some little things like decency, sovereignty, and yes, the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 JFK wasnt a liberal,he was a democrat.Big difference. JFK wasn't liberal?!?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Uhg, I nearly threw up looking at the Democratic women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Always? Always? In the 1860s, when the conservatives wanted to keep slavery going, was my side wrong? In the 1960s, when the USSR was putting nukes on Cuba, was my side wrong in exercising caution? Would your current philosophy of "kill your enemies" work? Certainly the liberals weren't wrong in bringing our economy back to life with the New Deal, were they? The list could go on and on.:doh: I am sorry, but the New Deal did not bring back the economy back to life. It's not even a debate anymore. There is a reason why a depression became a Great Depression. While I am not a conservative, it's intellectually irresponsible to suggest that conservatives would want to preserve slavery. Have you actually studied conservatism? Conservatism the movement/ideology is a lot different than the actual literal definition of the word conservative. In fact, as I often argued, there is nothing remotely conservative about current foreign policy. It's actually rather liberal, a policy that comes out of the pages of Theo Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (both liberal progressive presidents). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I am sorry, but the New Deal did not bring back the economy back to life. It's not even a debate anymore. There is a reason why a depression became a Great Depression.While I am not a conservative, it's intellectually irresponsible to suggest that conservatives would want to preserve slavery. Have you actually studied conservatism? Conservatism the movement/ideology is a lot different than the actual literal definition of the word conservative. In fact, as I often argued, there is nothing remotely conservative about current foreign policy. It's actually rather liberal, a policy that comes out of the pages of Theo Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (both liberal progressive presidents). The New Deal did bring us out of the depression. Sure, it worked in tandem with the war, but it was still effective. The more conservative of the two parties at the time did want slavery. It's fact. I know that the terms are mixed up and confused. I'm speaking in terms of today. I know conservative used to be liberal, liberal conservative, Republican liberal, etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhodatSkinsFan? Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 woof-Grant Now THAT'S comedy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 The New Deal did bring us out of the depression. Sure, it worked in tandem with the war, but it was still effective. If you want to make the case that the increased role of the federal government was neccesary, fine. We will agree to disagree. We can have that debate some other time But you are wrong on the New Deal getting us of the depression. I can provide bipartisan links if you want me too. The notion that the New Deal got us of the depression runs against mounts of empirical evidence. I suggest you check out the Journal of Political Economy, one of the top economic journals in the world. They did a study on the New Deal two years ago, and reached the same conclusion that many libertarian economists have decades ago. An increasing amount of historians are grudgingly acknowledging it as well. The New Deal myth really needs to die. The more conservative of the two parties at the time did want slavery. It's fact. Yes, I agree. But once again you are talking about conservative the word, not the movement. The modern conservative movement goes back to the New Deal (those who opposed FDR domestic and foreign policy- in fact many folks on the left joined the movement as well). While, you may not be paying attention, conservatism has evolved the last few decades. The movement for the most part has dropped its libertarian and paelo origins. ------ By the way the father of modern conservatism is Edmund Burke. It you really want to understand conservatism, start with him. A damn shame how so many conservatives have betrayed his legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Great post.Those democRATS look like vampires and swampdonkies. Great post? Good joke, maybe. You can't tell me that you don't realize the Democrats are all portrayed in horribly unflattering facial positions. If that is indeed what you're telling me, there's nothing more I can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 You can't tell me that you don't realize the Democrats are all portrayed in horribly unflattering facial positions. I don't think any "position" could clean up that mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Nostril Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I think that all major party candidates are *******s, and if you ever voted for a republican or democrat(at least as far back as I remember, which is only 96) you are gutless. I don't actually think that, but I can't see myself voting for a republican or democrat unless something pretty drastic changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 If you want to make the case that the increased role of the federal government was neccesary, fine. We will agree to disagree. We can have that debate some other timeBut you are wrong on the New Deal getting us of the depression. I can provide bipartisan links if you want me too. The notion that the New Deal got us of the depression runs against mounts of empirical evidence. I suggest you check out the Journal of Political Economy, one of the top economic journals in the world. They did a study on the New Deal two years ago, and reached the same conclusion that many libertarian economists have decades ago. An increasing amount of historians are grudgingly acknowledging it as well. The New Deal myth really needs to die. Are you arguing that increased government spending doesn't kick start the economy? The depression occured in large part because there was no social safety (government) net in place to preserve buying power for people as unemployment grew. As people lost jobs, they couldn't spend, companies made less, and more people lost jobs. Rinse repeat. It's why we have unemployment benefits today, to stop a down economy from becoming another great depression. Not all of the new deal was effective or even good. It was new terroritory, not everything works when it's being learned. Increased government spending is accepted by economist as a means of helping a down economy though so I would love to hear how a more limited economy would have saved the day when consumers had no money with which to engage in business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.