|
On October 14 2010 13:26 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2010 13:22 lvatural wrote:On October 14 2010 13:01 FindingPride wrote:On October 14 2010 12:57 lvatural wrote:On October 14 2010 12:55 FindingPride wrote:On October 14 2010 12:53 lvatural wrote:On October 14 2010 12:40 FindingPride wrote:On October 14 2010 12:34 DannyJ wrote:On October 14 2010 12:32 FindingPride wrote:On October 14 2010 12:25 DannyJ wrote:
[quote]
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains... Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance. Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb. Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists. Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite? Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once. And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me. If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way? Too bad this line of thought is irrelevant seeing as O'Donnell isn't coerced into saying stupid shit. lol I think I've been trolled. Great job at pretending to be a moron in support of the Tea Party Candidate. You did fairly well. Saying you support a conservative/republican Candidate is grounds for being labeled a moron lately
She is not conservative, nor does she have much republican ideal other than being a christian, based on what she has said so far.
Her knowledge of the world/politic/economics or anything relevant to being a senator is minimal at best. Her platform is basically moral issues, which is not a reason to run an office, and why? because anybody can do this. I mean ANYBODY. If a candidate has no clear idea what they are going to do about relevant political issues other than moral issue, in my opinion, they deserved to be called a moron.
|
Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party.
|
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:*snip*
That's fine and all, but it won't happen until her supporters are sufficiently educated, which I doubt they are.
|
Gaining ground in a state that's less significant than Rhode Island.
|
On October 15 2010 06:07 TOloseGT wrote:That's fine and all, but it won't happen until her supporters are sufficiently educated, which I doubt they are.
And they won't be. Because they'll have kids (or already do). And they'll teach the kids this BS (or already have).
|
On October 15 2010 07:29 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 06:07 TOloseGT wrote:On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:*snip* That's fine and all, but it won't happen until her supporters are sufficiently educated, which I doubt they are. And they won't be. Because they'll have kids (or already do). And they'll teach the kids this BS (or already have).
*Remembers that video about this kid telling his mom he's an Atheist*
|
They say the Delaware Republican is loudly complaining about how they won't support her -- and they are not -- as a way to generate angry, send-them-a-message donations from her Tea Party base.
Specifically, according to two top GOP insiders, she said at a strategy meeting with DC types last week: "I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys."
And that was precisely what she was doing on the radio today. On Hannity's popular afternoon drive-time show, the Tea Party-inspired Senate contender acidly criticized the party, specifically the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for not funneling any serious cash (beyond a pro forma $43,000) into her race against Democrat Chris Coons.
Source
|
ITT: People are surprised mental competency isn't a requirement for the House/Senate.
Where have you guys been the last 10 years?
Hell, the last 50 (admittedly, I'm not that old)?
|
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party.
So to shorten up what you're saying, you believe that Democrats, after over 100 years of hatred of black men and women, trying to uphold slavery, creating the KKK, lynching black men and women at Democratic rallys, and constantly having the means to prosecute black men and women taken away from them by Republicans, decided to become Republicans.
That makes sense.
|
House of Representatives:
Republicans for: 152
Republicans against: 96
Democrats for: 138
Democrats against: 34
Vote count for the Civil Rights Act 1964
You're right, the Republicans clearly have the better record on civil rights...
|
On October 15 2010 15:22 bbq ftw wrote:
House of Representatives:
Republicans for: 152
Republicans against: 96
Democrats for: 138
Democrats against: 34
Vote count for the Civil Rights Act 1964
You're right, the Republicans clearly have the better record on civil rights...
As yes, the second civil rights bill. The first was killed (by democrats) after Lincoln won the Civil War, and gave the Democrats voting rights in the House and Senate to help bring about reunification.
To say that the entire Democratic party was rasict would be disingenuous. But if you were racist you were a Democrat (however there was one Republican around the 1960's that was an outspoken black man hater). When the racist democrats didn't want something passed, they would put in wording that Republicans hated and then would vote with the Republicans against the bill (and the same for the non racist part of the democratic party).
The Republican belief during the 1960's was that you can't litigate morality (something everyone learned about during prohibition). If people want to be racist, having the government try to chose which opinions you can hold is a very fine line to walk (this is the same argument that Rand Paul gave that landed him in hot water). In this case, we walked the line and didn't fall, the negatives were far outweighed by the positives.
What you're ignoring though, is things like the KKK's purpose wasn't about influencing Senate and House voting, it was about local elections (because the states had more power). Would you like me to find more votes (there are many mentioned in "When Affirmitive Action Was White")?
|
Kind of weird since the Republicans and Democrats during Lincolns era are total opposites now...
|
On October 15 2010 16:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Kind of weird since the Republicans and Democrats during Lincolns era are total opposites now...
From a conservative luminary who I won't name~
"Republicans believe in a color-blind society. They don't even get to the first step with racists."
|
On October 15 2010 15:17 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party. So to shorten up what you're saying, you believe that Democrats, after over 100 years of hatred of black men and women, trying to uphold slavery, creating the KKK, lynching black men and women at Democratic rallys, and constantly having the means to prosecute black men and women taken away from them by Republicans, decided to become Republicans. That makes sense.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion because none of his post insinuates any of what you said. It's like you simply looked at his post instead of reading it and wrought a faulty dismissive response out of thin air.
|
On October 15 2010 15:53 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 15:22 bbq ftw wrote:
House of Representatives:
Republicans for: 152
Republicans against: 96
Democrats for: 138
Democrats against: 34
Vote count for the Civil Rights Act 1964
You're right, the Republicans clearly have the better record on civil rights...
As yes, the second civil rights bill. The first was killed (by democrats) after Lincoln won the Civil War, and gave the Democrats voting rights in the House and Senate to help bring about reunification.
Democrats had voting rights in the House and Senate throughout the war.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 were passed and signed into law btw.
|
On October 15 2010 16:14 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 15:17 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party. So to shorten up what you're saying, you believe that Democrats, after over 100 years of hatred of black men and women, trying to uphold slavery, creating the KKK, lynching black men and women at Democratic rallys, and constantly having the means to prosecute black men and women taken away from them by Republicans, decided to become Republicans. That makes sense. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion because none of his post insinuates any of what you said. It's like you simply looked at his post instead of reading it and wrought a faulty dismissive response out of thin air.
In all honesty, its not easy to respond to a post that boils down to: "anyone who believes in limited government/fiscal conservatism is retarded, doesn't believe in science, is fueled by paranoia and hate, is anti-nonwhite. Did I mention they're also stupid?
Oh, and they're just like the KKK."
Really, though, how would you respond? To do so seriously would concede the point: "oh, they're not as idiotic as you think..."
|
On October 15 2010 16:14 koreasilver wrote:
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion because none of his post insinuates any of what you said. It's like you simply looked at his post instead of reading it and wrought a faulty dismissive response out of thin air.
Ok then, let me show just how random and ignorant his post is.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington.
The tea party stands against taxes, increased federal spending, and increased government. It has nothing to do with president Obama (though his spending even more than Bush is what pushed the cart over the edge).
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet.
The KKK was specifically made because the government couldn't keep black men from voting, so they need to threaten their lives to keep them from voting. It had nothing to do with political or social reform, it was based on a hatred of black men, and belief that they are inferior to white men and shouldn't have any rights. Look at when anti-lynching laws were passed.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
I think you need to relook at American history in the south in the 1960's if you think that rasism was coming to a close.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Alright, name the leaders of the Tea party. You try to insinuate that anyone the tea party votes for is one of their leaders, which is completely asinine. You don't identify who their leaders are, but then try to draw the conclusion that anyone stupid or ignorant that they vote for is a direct representation of the people themselves. And that stupid or ignorant is the same as radical. Why did O'donnel beat the incumbent? Because they didn't like his RINO ass. That they replaced RINO with some crazy woman is more ignorance than extremism.
On October 15 2010 16:16 Mindcrime wrote:
As yes, the second civil rights bill. The first was killed (by democrats) after Lincoln won the Civil War, and gave the Democrats voting rights in the House and Senate to help bring about reunification.
Democrats had voting rights in the House and Senate throughout the war.[/quote]
That's nice, too bad I never mentioned Democrats voting during the civil war. Reading what I wrote: after Lincoln won the Civil War. Now why after? Because democrats were either expelled or withdrew with the secession.
On October 15 2010 16:16 Mindcrime wrote:
The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 were passed and signed into law btw.
While I didn't say that they were passed, I did believe that they weren't (which is entirely my misunderstanding). However I'm still correct as it was declared unconstitutional and was also unenforcable in the southern states.
On October 15 2010 16:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Kind of weird since the Republicans and Democrats during Lincolns era are total opposites now...
Republicans have always believed that government should play the proper role in society to maintain the most freedoms possible for its citizens. Only the government could make the louisiana purchase to help with colonization of the Americas. With Teddy the government stopped monopolies from charging exhorbant amounts for anything and everything. Democrats have always believed in a government that will overrun any rights of the people in order to put into place their vision. That's why they wanted and empowered State and weak Federal government, so they could continue to brutalize black men and women, and keep slaves. Now they want a weak state and empowered Federal government to force people to buy anything they deem a "right". The means has changed, but the logic hasn't.
|
On October 15 2010 16:59 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Republicans have always believed that government should play the proper role in society to maintain the most freedoms possible for its citizens. Only the government could make the louisiana purchase to help with colonization of the Americas. With Teddy the government stopped monopolies from charging exhorbant amounts for anything and everything. Democrats have always believed in a government that will overrun any rights of the people in order to put into place their vision. That's why they wanted and empowered State and weak Federal government, so they could continue to brutalize black men and women, and keep slaves. Now they want a weak state and empowered Federal government to force people to buy anything they deem a "right". The means has changed, but the logic hasn't.
I have read a lot of BS on TL before, but this is one the first times that I can't actually think of something to say because it is so stupid.
|
Nope, not frustration or alienation. Just retardation.
|
Democrats have always believed in a government that will overrun any rights of the people in order to put into place their vision. That's why they wanted and empowered State and weak Federal government, so they could continue to brutalize black men and women, and keep slaves.
You know, I want to agree with this, but damn there's a terrible self-contradiction in there....
While I do agree that today's Democrats trend toward larger role of government in all/most economic matters, that certainly hasn't always been the case, and to conflate that with slavery is just....bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
