Ditch Dixie

[Ramo]

When Democrats speak of "moral values," what they mean is sex, drugs and rock 'n roll.

Exactly, Ned, the Democrats are for Rock n' Roll! All that grooving and gyrating in the Devil's music is destroying America. Chuck Berry and the Beatles were terrorists. The Republicans, on the ohter hand, suupport the moral decency and show tunes.

The Republican Party: Turing the country back half a century, since 1980

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
Liberal Democrats today stand for socialism, environmental extremism, libertinism and open hatred and mockery of religion. When Democrats speak of "moral values," what they mean is sex, drugs and rock 'n roll. When they speak of "family values," what they mean is that a woman should be able to have children outside of marriage because placing any value on the man as a father in a family environment is sexist. When they speak of fiscal conservatism what they mean is high taxes in the context of a class warfare attack on the rich, corporations and business in general. And when they speak of environmentalism, what they mean is completely shutting down polluting industries, not building power plants in their backyards, ending drilling for oil anywhere United States, protecting owls over jobs and in general trying to return the United States to the golden age of yesteryear when there were no factories, no cars and no pollution. And when it comes to religion, they favor freedom "from" religion not freedom "of" religion. They opening attack Christianity in all its forms and all its places. Yesterday it was removing prayer from a classroom. Today it is removing Christ from Christmas.

Is there any wonder why the Liberal Democrat finds no home in America outside of the centers of hedonism and socialism, namely Hollywood, San Francisco, New York and Chicago?

nice troll


I'm a Democrat, and I can list some of my values:

1) Helping the impoverished pull themselves up by the bootstraps by giving them bootstraps to pull up with, when they don't have bootstraps already.

2) Granting women autonomy over their own bodies.

3) Subjecting all citizens to the same marriage laws and privileges out of democratic fairness and principle of equality, regardless of sexual orientation.

4) Allowing everyone the freedom of religious expression without official government sanctioning of any one, particular religion.

5) Promoting more responsible government spending by having the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes (as of right now, they do not pay their fair share in proportion to their wealth).

6) Closing loopholes that rewards American companies for exporting jobs overseas to foreigners that should be kept for American workers.

7) Taking more active steps to utilize alternative energy sources, because drilling more holes to get at a limited resource is a short-sighted, half-ass solution.





But please, carry on with your pathetic trolls if it gives you a hot climax.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ROCK AND ROLL STOPS THE TRAFFIC

[el freako]

How about this for an idea?

Do something about the parlous state of gerrymandering in the US - it is slowly poisoning your democracy.

The overwhelming majority of congressional districts are gerrymandered so that one party or the other is likely to have a safe majority.

This means that in order for a candidate to represent them he has to pander to the vocal members of his own party far more than he has to actually consider what most potential voters want.

The result is polititians of both parties in thrall to special interests and vocal minorities that are usually significantly to the left or right of most voters - as such polititians learn to put far too much weight on the ideas of extremists and far too little on the common voter, and they take this 'learned' behaviour with them when then leave congress for other political posts.

If the US doesn't do something to stop (and hopefully reverse) this process it's democracy will be significantly diminished in a few generations.

[DanS]

Gerrymandering has been going on since the founding. If our democracy is being poisoned, it's sure being done at a leisurely pace.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
nice troll

He sees it's a trap . . .

I'm a Democrat, and I can list some of my values:

. . . and dives in head first.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Gerrymandering has been going on since the founding. If our democracy is being poisoned, it's sure being done at a leisurely pace.

You'd be less sanguine if it wasn't being done for your party's benefit.

[mrmitchell]

But please, carry on with your pathetic trolls if it gives you a hot climax.

No, MrF, but I think you help him with that.

[Ted Striker]

Jerry Ryan

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by MrFun
nice troll

He sees it's a trap . . .

I'm a Democrat, and I can list some of my values:

. . . and dives in head first.

I was bored and ornery at the time.



Forgive me, commie, for I have sin . . . . . . .

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
Gerrymandering has been going on since the founding. If our democracy is being poisoned, it's sure being done at a leisurely pace.

According to Congressional Quarterly, in 1992-96 over 100 house seats were 'competitive' (i.e. one side did not have an overwhelming majority), that dropped to around 50 in 2000-02 and to less than 30 today.

So in 93% of the House seats who get's in is decided far more by how much they can please whoever shouts loudest in their party rather than the voters.

Now, i'm sure you know the quote of Paracelsus "There are no poisons, only posionous doses", but when over 9 out of 10 seats are decided by a vocal minority of a political party surely that is reaching the poisonous dose?

[DanS]

I wonder whether CQ had historical figures. 1992-96 was a very tumultuous time. The house bank checks scandal in 1992. The changeover of the house in 1994 and associated realignment. A pretty huge changing of the guard.

[MalevolentLight]

5) Promoting more responsible government spending by having the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes (as of right now, they do not pay their fair share in proportion to their wealth).

And who is going to determine what a "fair share" is? But you're right, they don't pay their fair share. They pay far more than what a "fair share" is unless you are speaking in liberalese where "fair" is determined by what social program you need funding for.

1) Helping the impoverished pull themselves up by the bootstraps by giving them bootstraps to pull up with, when they don't have bootstraps already.

At the expense of everyone else. Why don't you call it what it is and just say "I'm for income redistribution, also known as Communism". Would make things alot easier.

2) Granting women autonomy over their own bodies.

You mean granting women the right to commit murder?

3) Subjecting all citizens to the same marriage laws and privileges out of democratic fairness and principle of equality, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Insert Democratic candidate] for same sex marriage in 2008!! Apparently having one of the biggest losses in history wasn't enough.

4) Allowing everyone the freedom of religious expression without official government sanctioning of any one, particular religion.

Which is then translated from liberalese to: Allowing other religions to practice freely from the evil Christians while suing any organization that might have any sort of ties to Christianity. Islam is ok though.

6) Closing loopholes that rewards American companies for exporting jobs overseas to foreigners that should be kept for American workers.

I agree!!! Lets start with Heinz and while we're at it lets get the Kerry's to pay their taxes instead of only claiming 1% of their income.

7) Taking more active steps to utilize alternative energy sources, because drilling more holes to get at a limited resource is a short-sighted, half-ass solution.

Absolutely we need to find other energy sources. But hey, lets drill in the Middle East instead of in America in the meantime right?

Liberalese

[chequita guevara]

Oh look who's back.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by el freako
According to Congressional Quarterly, in 1992-96 over 100 house seats were 'competitive' (i.e. one side did not have an overwhelming majority), that dropped to around 50 in 2000-02 and to less than 30 today.

So in 93% of the House seats who get's in is decided far more by how much they can please whoever shouts loudest in their party rather than the voters.

DanS is dead wrong. There has been an explosion of jerry mandering in the last decade so that our democracy has become a shadow of itself. What does it mean when the majority of Americans cannont voice their opinions effectively because the political districts have been rigged to prevent it?