Conservatives...

I don't have any links or know of any studies on this, but I'd be willing to bet the statistics lean toward liberals more. Is there something you have, other than your idiot opinion, to suggest otherwise?

Yes, liberals detest violence and killing. Blacks, Hispanics or anyone who takes another life is not a 'liberal'.

I try not to kill anything, even bugs...I respect life and ALL of God's creations. It's ironic that during the war in Iraq, Gitmo, torture and Abu Ghraib, liberals were chastised for being weak and unpatriotic pacifists. And we were sympathetic to terrorists because we didn't want to kill all Muslims or show extreme bigotry and hatred for all Muslims.
 
Yes, liberals detest violence and killing. Blacks, Hispanics or anyone who takes another life is not a 'liberal'.

I try not to kill anything, even bugs...I respect life and ALL of God's creations. It's ironic that during the war in Iraq, Gitmo, torture and Abu Ghraib, liberals were chastised for being weak and unpatriotic pacifists. And we were sympathetic to terrorists because we didn't want to kill all Muslims or show extreme bigotry and hatred for all Muslims.

Well Obama is killing hundreds of Muslims as we speak. I think I would just drop the meme about Iraq, gitmo, torture, etc. Seems you're fine with it when a liberal is doing it... I guess he kills all of those Muslims with compassion and understanding of their plight? Kill 'em with cruise missiles and you don't have to take them back to that god-forsaken gitmo to be tortured...is that the idea? I suppose it's like the million fetuses a year you liberals are responsible for killing, as long as you don't see or hear them, they don't matter. Right?
 
Yes, liberals detest violence and killing. Blacks, Hispanics or anyone who takes another life is not a 'liberal'.

I try not to kill anything, even bugs...I respect life and ALL of God's creations. It's ironic that during the war in Iraq, Gitmo, torture and Abu Ghraib, liberals were chastised for being weak and unpatriotic pacifists. And we were sympathetic to terrorists because we didn't want to kill all Muslims or show extreme bigotry and hatred for all Muslims.

That's a nice definition of "liberal" there, although you might have gone a bit far by invoking God into the creation. :barf:
 
Essentially, they are at fault. Everyone in America has the same opportunity to be successful. I can cite numerous examples of people who have come to this country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, and they became uber-successful. Now, how would that be possible, if the opportunity to be successful was not available to those who have very little? Of course, someone who has the proclivity tor become a victim, to blame their woes on society, to make excuses for why they can't possibly make it... those people are generally not going to ever be successful, they don't have what it takes to become successful, and it doesn't matter how much opportunity is presented to them. Who's "fault" is that, if not the individual?

If they don't have what it takes to be successful how is that their fault? If one doesn't have the proper voice to be a singer how is that their fault? Or the out-going personality to sell? Or the physical build to be a professional wrestler? Or....

Sure, there are lazy people but how many are so lazy they prefer to suffer? Lack of medical attention, food and shelter.

The average, healthy individual is not asking the government for a new car a big screen TV.

You only THINK you are helping people by stealing from one group to give to another. In actuality, it promotes a dependent class, it fosters the attitude of victimization in the very individuals who are seeking an excuse for not becoming successful.

It doesn't foster anything. The person requiring help is already a victim of circumstance. If a 30 year goes from having a home and job to being on welfare they are already a victim. That didn't happen because of government help.

Again, you confuse successful with survival. No one is expecting the government to supply a successful lifestyle.

It enables the problem to grow, while we chase some utopian vision of something that will never be.

Utopian? Living on welfare is utopia?!!

How much money or dope can you give an addict to make him get off drugs and clean up his life? How much money or booze can you give an alcoholic to make him stop drinking? How much welfare can you give someone who has no motivation to succeed, to make them want to be successful? What YOU see as "helping" people is in actuality, HARMING them! Now... that is not to say that we can't be benevolent or offer some level of emergency aid for people who truly find themselves in a distressful situation, but that is a far cry from what we have currently grown for ourselves, which is a class of dependents who don't feel they have to do anything except wait for their government check, because they are 'entitled' to something they didn't earn. Even your stupid idiotic notions regarding health care, are cloaked in this line of insane thinking... that we can provide medical care for FREE to people, it doesn't cost anyone anything, in fact, we're going to SAVE money! You can't seem to comprehend, NOTHING IS FREE, EVER! No matter what you think, no matter how much you hope and dream... it just isn't that way in the reality of the world we live in. Things cost money, services cost money, and someone has to pay for that at some point.

Here we go again with the same old nonsense that the richest country on the face of the earth can't afford to look after it's ill citizens.

Dozens of other countries have proven government medical is cheaper. Do some research. I don't know why we have to keep addressing this point when every chart/graph/comparison shows it is cheaper by at least a third AND life expectancy is equal to or greater than in the US. That is a fact.
 
If they don't have what it takes to be successful how is that their fault? If one doesn't have the proper voice to be a singer how is that their fault? Or the out-going personality to sell? Or the physical build to be a professional wrestler? Or....

Who's fault is it? I asked you. I believe that every person has the capability to be successful. Whether they have the motivation to be, that is a different matter. If one doesn't have the proper voice to be a singer, one should probably not be a singer... I don't think I ever saw Bill Gates sing, have you? We each have something we can do, that we are passionate about, that we can be successful at in life, there is not a person alive, who doesn't have SOMETHING of value to offer. You work with the tools you are given, and if you have drive and determination, and believe in yourself, you will be successful, you can't fail. It doesn't matter what socioeconomic condition you came from, how much money you started out with, or what kind of circumstance you were born into. You either HAVE that motivation, or you DON'T! It's not MY fault, if you don't!

Sure, there are lazy people but how many are so lazy they prefer to suffer? Lack of medical attention, food and shelter.

There are MILLIONS of lazy people who would rather think it is someone else who should take care of their needs, wants, and desires. They had rather "suffer" and complain, than to actually get up off their ass and try to do better. They've raised a generation of kids old enough, that when they croak, the kids will sue the government for not helping them more. What planet are you living on?

No one in America is without shelter, who wants shelter. People who are 'homeless' have plenty of resources, both public and private, to not BE homeless, if that is what they want. Most homeless people are that way by choice. As for medical attention, we all have the occasional need for medical attention, and it is each of us who is responsible for that. We have also established laws in every state, to care for those who have no money to pay, it's called "indigent care" and it covers EVERYONE who can't pay for emergency medical care. Then we have Medicaid, which pays for general health care, and we have state health clinics who provide free care... we have over a million charity groups devoted to providing assistance to people in need. Yet--- all of that is not enough for you?

It doesn't foster anything. The person requiring help is already a victim of circumstance. If a 30 year goes from having a home and job to being on welfare they are already a victim. That didn't happen because of government help.

And this illustrates beautifully, why you are a pinhead liberal and I am a conservative. You believe people are "victims" and can't possibly do anything about their situation. I believe in the power of the individual and individual spirit. I believe that every man is born with the capability to be successful, and can achieve that in a free market capitalist society. You believe that it is HELPING people to enable their dependency, and I think it is much more HELPFUL to encourage them to empower themselves and become successful at something, and not depend on others. Not to use the "victim" crutch, but to find a way to turn their individual talents and skills into success. I believe in their ability to do this, and our ability as a society to help them do this in any way we can. You just want to keep buying their votes while they remain entrenched in poverty and dependent.
 
Who's fault is it? I asked you. I believe that every person has the capability to be successful. Whether they have the motivation to be, that is a different matter. If one doesn't have the proper voice to be a singer, one should probably not be a singer... I don't think I ever saw Bill Gates sing, have you? We each have something we can do, that we are passionate about, that we can be successful at in life, there is not a person alive, who doesn't have SOMETHING of value to offer. You work with the tools you are given, and if you have drive and determination, and believe in yourself, you will be successful, you can't fail. It doesn't matter what socioeconomic condition you came from, how much money you started out with, or what kind of circumstance you were born into. You either HAVE that motivation, or you DON'T! It's not MY fault, if you don't!

So where does one get motivation? Why isn't everyone naturally motivated? Who would consciously make a choice to be poor? Have you ever heard anyone say, "I want to be poor. I like being poor"?

In many cases government help comes so late that the person has lost everything along with their motivation. An individual saves for 10 years to buy a home. A couple of years later they lose their job. Along with losing their home they lose the money it took 10 years to save to buy the home as the bank is only interested in selling it for enough to cover the outstanding mortgage.

Or other programs that require a person to go through their entire savings before the government helps. They wait until the person is almost destitute before offering assistance. It would make more sense and be much more productive to help people at the start of a crisis to try and avoid them slipping too far down. If help arrived sooner people wouldn't lose so much and they'd be in a better position, financially and emotionally, to get back on their feet, earn a living and pay taxes and everyone, including the government, would benefit..

There are MILLIONS of lazy people who would rather think it is someone else who should take care of their needs, wants, and desires. They had rather "suffer" and complain, than to actually get up off their ass and try to do better. They've raised a generation of kids old enough, that when they croak, the kids will sue the government for not helping them more. What planet are you living on?

Their "their needs, wants, and desires"? Government supplies the average person's "needs, wants, and desires"? What planet are you living on where welfare is sufficient to supply an average person's needs, wants, and desires?

No one in America is without shelter, who wants shelter. People who are 'homeless' have plenty of resources, both public and private, to not BE homeless, if that is what they want. Most homeless people are that way by choice. As for medical attention, we all have the occasional need for medical attention, and it is each of us who is responsible for that. We have also established laws in every state, to care for those who have no money to pay, it's called "indigent care" and it covers EVERYONE who can't pay for emergency medical care. Then we have Medicaid, which pays for general health care, and we have state health clinics who provide free care... we have over a million charity groups devoted to providing assistance to people in need. Yet--- all of that is not enough for you?

More nonsense. If medical care is freely available then why would anyone buy medical insurance? As for the million charity groups maybe get rid of them all and have one general, government medical plan. Or are you adverse to logic?

And this illustrates beautifully, why you are a pinhead liberal and I am a conservative. You believe people are "victims" and can't possibly do anything about their situation. I believe in the power of the individual and individual spirit. I believe that every man is born with the capability to be successful, and can achieve that in a free market capitalist society. You believe that it is HELPING people to enable their dependency, and I think it is much more HELPFUL to encourage them to empower themselves and become successful at something, and not depend on others. Not to use the "victim" crutch, but to find a way to turn their individual talents and skills into success. I believe in their ability to do this, and our ability as a society to help them do this in any way we can. You just want to keep buying their votes while they remain entrenched in poverty and dependent.

Fine. Then let's empower them. Let's show them how to find a way to turn their individual talents and skills into success. Let's help them. That's the point. Help. But we're not helping them while we sit back and watch them lose everything they've worked for and when they're completely destitute offering them a pittance of money on which to barely survive.

Civilization has changed. In the past people remained in their respective communities all their life. While family, friends and neighbors would help out an individual the individual would help them out at some point in time. Today, people move around so they aren't close to their family, friends and neighbors. They don't remain in a specific community to get to know their neighbors and make close friends so their "help" is through paying taxes which go towards government programs which, in turn, help them.

If a person has known their friends and neighbors for 20 or 30 years and they lose their job those friends and neighbors will help out. Because many people move they never have the time to make friends and get to know the neighbors, on a personal level, so the government has a role to fill the missing connection/help.

In other words the government becomes your friend. :D
 
So where does one get motivation? Why isn't everyone naturally motivated? Who would consciously make a choice to be poor? Have you ever heard anyone say, "I want to be poor. I like being poor"?

Ironically, some people do say just exactly that, in their actions, not with words. Especially when they can do literally nothing, and nit wits like you will send them a check every month for doing nothing. I don't know where individual motivations come from... does everyone want to climb to the top of Mt. Everest? Clearly some people do, it's their life's goal, but some people couldn't care less, it's just the nature of humanity, we all have different degrees of motivation for different things. Here's what I have never heard anyone say... Boy, I am sure glad I received welfare, I could have never been a success without it! I know of not ONE single solitary example of ANYONE who has become successful, and attributed it to government assistance. Not ONE! Being successful takes motivation, and it takes hard work! Some people are lazy, they don't want to work hard... that's why everyone isn't a brain surgeon... some people don't want to go to school for years and years, and learn tons of information, and slave through internships, and serve time in residencies, and be critiqued and evaluated endlessly... they had rather take the easy route and learn how to push a few keys on the register at Wal-mart, and that's what they do. It's not MY choice to make, it's THEIRS!

In many cases government help comes so late that the person has lost everything along with their motivation. An individual saves for 10 years to buy a home. A couple of years later they lose their job. Along with losing their home they lose the money it took 10 years to save to buy the home as the bank is only interested in selling it for enough to cover the outstanding mortgage.

Stop obsessing on your stupid little individual examples which seldom apply to the real world. Donald Trump lost everything... every penny he had... as he walked from the courtroom following his bankruptcy hearing, he passed a homeless man on the street and commented to his lawyer, "that man is worth more than I am right now." It was true, the homeless guy with a tin cup and sign, had more 'wealth' than Donald Trump... did he give up and join the guy in the street? He could have, but that wasn't the choice he made, he slowly began to rebuild his fortune, and did. Someone asked him later, was it easier to get rich the first time or the second time, and he said... the second time, because he knew he could do it. Again, it comes down to motivation of the individual... some people have it, some people don't.

Or other programs that require a person to go through their entire savings before the government helps. They wait until the person is almost destitute before offering assistance. It would make more sense and be much more productive to help people at the start of a crisis to try and avoid them slipping too far down. If help arrived sooner people wouldn't lose so much and they'd be in a better position, financially and emotionally, to get back on their feet, earn a living and pay taxes and everyone, including the government, would benefit..

I agree, it would be better to stop burdening upper income earners with higher taxation, under the premise you are punishing "the rich". These people are mostly middle class people with the motivation and dream of being rich, and we are systemically killing their dream. We should stop doing that, and encourage their motivation to succeed by rewarding their accomplishments.

More nonsense. If medical care is freely available then why would anyone buy medical insurance? As for the million charity groups maybe get rid of them all and have one general, government medical plan. Or are you adverse to logic?

Many people don't buy health insurance. A lot of people don't like taking charity, they were raised to believe that was unacceptable. But that doesn't change the facts I presented. And it's much better to have a million charities spread out across America, who know the people in the community, and know who needs help and who is a scam artist, than to have one impersonal centralized charity group in Washington D.C.

Fine. Then let's empower them. Let's show them how to find a way to turn their individual talents and skills into success. Let's help them. That's the point. Help. But we're not helping them while we sit back and watch them lose everything they've worked for and when they're completely destitute offering them a pittance of money on which to barely survive.

I've always been for empowerment programs. And I have never been for welfare, where we imprison someone to a life of destitution for the promise of a monthly check. Another $20 a month on their check, is not going to change their situation, especially if they lack the motivation mentioned before. But that is exactly the sort of solution you have in mind... keep tossing the poor people a few crumbs, because they are hopelessly stupid and unable to do anything about it. I believe in people, I think they CAN do something about it, they just need motivation. Now.... it may sound harsh, but when you cut off the supply of money, that's a pretty good motivator for most people. It may be tough love, but it works.

Civilization has changed. In the past people remained in their respective communities all their life. While family, friends and neighbors would help out an individual the individual would help them out at some point in time. Today, people move around so they aren't close to their family, friends and neighbors. They don't remain in a specific community to get to know their neighbors and make close friends so their "help" is through paying taxes which go towards government programs which, in turn, help them.

For every dollar you pay in taxes, about $0.15 actually goes to "help" someone. The majority of the money goes to bureaucrats and expense of running the agencies. The "help" you end up giving, is nothing more than an enabler... something to keep them from becoming motivated. Consequently, people living on welfare can't go out and earn extra income, it disqualifies them from welfare if they do. So they are stuck, imprisoned to a life of poverty and destitution, BECAUSE of welfare. Is that HELP? Wouldn't it be better to raise them up from poverty and encourage their motivation to succeed? To give them something to do again, so they can begin to believe in themselves?
 
Why, is God the domain of the right wing evangelicals...the American Nazis?

I don't think He is, seeing as how I'm Catholic, but I will say this for them: However much I disagree with their theology, they created this country and secured its Independence and wrote its Constitution. Consider that before you call them Nazis.
 
I don't think He is, seeing as how I'm Catholic, but I will say this for them: However much I disagree with their theology, they created this country and secured its Independence and wrote its Constitution. Consider that before you call them Nazis.



Yeah, 3D Fag, the reichwing Christers of today have jack shit in common with the Founders...consider this, altar boy:






Catholics crucify Christ even now...http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/brown/110422


"The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity....Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam."



http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110324





"Islamic immigration remains a threat to our national security...The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries"




http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100408


 
Yeah, 3D Fag, the reichwing Christers of today have jack shit in common with the Founders...consider this, altar boy:






Catholics crucify Christ even now...http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/brown/110422


"The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity....Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam."



http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110324





"Islamic immigration remains a threat to our national security...The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries"




http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100408



1) Today's Evangelicals are highly Calvinist just like the Puritans of NE. They are greatly influenced but the Great Awakenings, of which the rise of modern Evangelicalism in the 70s is very similar to.

2) Yes, the 1st Amendment was indeed written to protect Christianity. In fact, Madison's original draft stated that "Congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion." This, however, left open a potential loophole which would have allowed Congress to interfere in State churches and establishment clauses (3 states had established churches, and 4 more had establishment clauses for the Christian faith). They then substituted the term "respecting an establishment," because that means that Congress cannot have any say of any kind. It can't even ban school prayer.
 
1) Today's Evangelicals are highly Calvinist just like the Puritans of NE. They are greatly influenced but the Great Awakenings, of which the rise of modern Evangelicalism in the 70s is very similar to.

2) Yes, the 1st Amendment was indeed written to protect Christianity. In fact, Madison's original draft stated that "Congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion." This, however, left open a potential loophole which would have allowed Congress to interfere in State churches and establishment clauses (3 states had established churches, and 4 more had establishment clauses for the Christian faith). They then substituted the term "respecting an establishment," because that means that Congress cannot have any say of any kind. It can't even ban school prayer.



Yeah, they're real Puritans.




"'C Street,' a Washington dormitory for lawmakers funded by a highly secretive Christian organization called the Fellowship. (The Fellowship is the group behind the National Prayer Breakfast, where President Obama rolled out his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships earlier this year.)




http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0609/Ensign_and_Sanford_The_C_Street_Connection.html
 
Ironically, some people do say just exactly that, in their actions, not with words. Especially when they can do literally nothing, and nit wits like you will send them a check every month for doing nothing.

That’s why education/retraining programs are beneficial. Healthy, happy human beings are motivated to at least provide for themselves a comfortable lifestyle, whatever their definition of “comfortable” may be but doing without life’s basic necessities is no ones idea of comfortable.

Stop obsessing on your stupid little individual examples which seldom apply to the real world.

My examples of people losing their job and their home do not apply to the real world? Obviously you do live on another planet.

Donald Trump lost everything... every penny he had... as he walked from the courtroom following his bankruptcy hearing, he passed a homeless man on the street and commented to his lawyer, "that man is worth more than I am right now." It was true, the homeless guy with a tin cup and sign, had more 'wealth' than Donald Trump... did he give up and join the guy in the street? He could have, but that wasn't the choice he made, he slowly began to rebuild his fortune, and did. Someone asked him later, was it easier to get rich the first time or the second time, and he said... the second time, because he knew he could do it. Again, it comes down to motivation of the individual... some people have it, some people don't.

It comes down to knowing how to do it along with luck and circumstance. I have previously related my own circumstance and luck that was having purchased properties in a “depressed” area and, unknown to me at the time, a few years later developers moved in and the prices soared. Was it my motivation? No. Was it my Real Estate knowledge? No. Was it anything I consciously did? No.

While not wealthy it definitely moved me from lower middle class to upper middle class. It offered me the opportunity to invest in a business and, best of all, Johnny’s dream became reality. :D

Then there’s the other side of the coin which is the previous owner of one of the properties had purchased it over 10 years prior and sold it to me for 5% less than what they paid. If they had held on for two more years they would have sold it for 50% more and if they held it for another couple of years they would have almost tripled their money.

Were they unmotivated? Lazy? Did they lack initiative? Or were they just not lucky?

Many people don't buy health insurance. A lot of people don't like taking charity, they were raised to believe that was unacceptable. But that doesn't change the facts I presented. And it's much better to have a million charities spread out across America, who know the people in the community, and know who needs help and who is a scam artist, than to have one impersonal centralized charity group in Washington D.C.

Unfortunately, people are prejudice. Do you honestly believe groups of people in small towns are going to treat every needy person equally?

Again, what planet did you say you’re from?

I've always been for empowerment programs. And I have never been for welfare, where we imprison someone to a life of destitution for the promise of a monthly check. Another $20 a month on their check, is not going to change their situation, especially if they lack the motivation mentioned before. But that is exactly the sort of solution you have in mind... keep tossing the poor people a few crumbs, because they are hopelessly stupid and unable to do anything about it. I believe in people, I think they CAN do something about it, they just need motivation. Now.... it may sound harsh, but when you cut off the supply of money, that's a pretty good motivator for most people. It may be tough love, but it works.

No, $20.00 extra will not change much. However, training programs and a physical check-up would be a great start. Changing to a balanced diet rather than noodles and hot dogs, being all they can afford, would go a long way to increasing their motivation.

For every dollar you pay in taxes, about $0.15 actually goes to "help" someone. The majority of the money goes to bureaucrats and expense of running the agencies. The "help" you end up giving, is nothing more than an enabler... something to keep them from becoming motivated. Consequently, people living on welfare can't go out and earn extra income, it disqualifies them from welfare if they do. So they are stuck, imprisoned to a life of poverty and destitution, BECAUSE of welfare. Is that HELP? Wouldn't it be better to raise them up from poverty and encourage their motivation to succeed? To give them something to do again, so they can begin to believe in themselves?

And why does earning a few extra dollars disqualify them? Because just like the example I gave about collecting unemployment and being forbidden to attend courses people are so afraid someone is getting something for nothing. The help is miserly given and the people receiving help are disparaged. That sure aids in motivating people, NOT!

You confuse cause and effect. People on welfare lost motivation long before they started collecting it because help came too late. After losing ones home and, frequently, ones spouse and family due to the financial crisis, as Johnny sings, “My woman done left and took all the reasons I was working for.”

The politicians are right to say entitlement programs need to be overhauled. We’re not living in the 1930s where any able-bodied person could find some form of employment. Our technological advancements have changed how society functions and social programs need to adapt to the new reality.

When a company closes and a thousand people in a community are put out of work it’s ridiculous to think there are a thousand other jobs available and those unemployed are just lazy.

As large corporations merge resulting in one corporation owning multiple businesses the closing or reorganization of one corporation affects many people. That is the new reality and the government has to adapt to that. It’s no longer a farm hand being laid off or a helper at the local hardware store and they being able to find another low skilled job. And as machines have taken over many low skilled jobs it’s obvious there are fewer jobs available.

From the assembly line worker to the data entry clerk to the inventory counter at large stores they are becoming as obsolete as the buggy whip maker.

Lastly, the whole purpose of technology is to reduce man’s need to labor. Just as Ford’s assembly line and mass production resulted in fewer people required to produce sufficient goods that trend has grown. Maybe 10% unemployment is the new normal. Logic dictates if machines/technology can produce sufficient goods there won’t be jobs for everyone because there won’t be any need for everyone to work.

The only way to deal with the change is by government taking a role. Society has to have some form of balance. As we progress there will be less and less of a requirement for everyone to work. That’s the whole point of progress.

We can’t expect people to embrace progress if it means the people replaced by progress (machines, technologies, etc) are looked down upon and considered lazy.

It’s like what Obama frequently referred to as tired, worn out ideas. People are still thinking 20th century thoughts in the 21st century. It’s time to get with the program, the social program!
 
ar·is·toc·ra·cy (
abreve.gif
r
lprime.gif
ibreve.gif
-st
obreve.gif
k
prime.gif
r
schwa.gif
-s
emacr.gif
)n. pl. ar·is·toc·ra·cies

A hereditary ruling class; nobility.
Government by the citizens deemed to be best qualified to lead.

Is this what the US has had since 2009 ?

Pretty funny. "A hereditary ruling class", wouldn't that be the bush family?
 
I don't have any links or know of any studies on this, but I'd be willing to bet the statistics lean toward liberals more. Is there something you have, other than your idiot opinion, to suggest otherwise?

I don't have statistics either but am willing to be that people who are committing murders and drive-byes aren't your average voters.
 
I don't think He is, seeing as how I'm Catholic, but I will say this for them: However much I disagree with their theology, they created this country and secured its Independence and wrote its Constitution. Consider that before you call them Nazis.

Hitler was a Catholic.
 
Back
Top