Proof Liberal Ideas Don’t Work No Matter Where They Are Tried.

Don't play stupid.

Mangy ain't playin....


I'm just sayin...

We all know what eras are being discussed. You were implying that modern liberals have the sames ideals as 18th Century liberals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern liberals are always calling the Founding Fathers racist, sexist, homophobic bigots.

"Liberal" refers to reforms of political or religious ideas and institutions. Infrastructure is neither liberal nor conservative.

Just because a marble rolls to the left, doesn't mean that it will vote for Obama. (Though a democrat will likely cast a vote for Obama in the marble's name!)

Government (tax-payer) funded infrastructure is absolutely a liberal idea.

The more you deny this obvious fact the more you look the fool.

bwgd? :dunno:
 
Government (tax-payer) funded infrastructure is absolutely a liberal idea.

The more you deny this obvious fact the more you look the fool.

bwgd? :dunno:

So you're saying the Roman Emperors and the absolute Monarchs of Europe were liberals?

You do realize how stupid you sound, don't you?
 
Government (tax-payer) funded infrastructure is absolutely a liberal idea.

Izzatrite, sparky?

So the castles that Henry the VIII built were "liberal?"

Troll "facts" are fascinating....

The more you deny this obvious fact the more you look the fool.

bwgd? :dunno:

220px-Hans_Holbein_d._J._074.jpg


Mangy's ideal liberal......
 
So I guess next these smart guys are going to tell us that government funded education isn't a liberal idea either. :thup:
 
So you're saying the Roman Emperors and the absolute Monarchs of Europe were liberals?

I'm saying no such thing. Boy are you a dummy.

Roman Emperors built the first paved public roads, which you claim is a liberal idea. So you must believe they were liberals. Was the Colosseum a liberal idea? How about feeding Christians to the lions or crucifying them?
 
So you're saying the Roman Emperors and the absolute Monarchs of Europe were liberals?

I'm saying no such thing. Boy are you a dummy.

Roman Emperors built the first paved public roads, which you claim is a liberal idea. So you must believe they were liberals. Was the Colosseum a liberal idea? How about feeding Christians to the lions or crucifying them?

One need not be a liberal to support one single liberal idea, dummy. You apparently support many liberal ideas, you've simply Jedi mind-tricked yourself into believing they're not liberal.

Best of luck with that. :thup:
 
So I guess next these smart guys are going to tell us that government funded education isn't a liberal idea either. :thup:

It definitely is a liberal idea, and as expected it's a total disaster.

Ok I get it, government funded programs you don't like are liberal and those you do like are not.

Do you have any idea how retarded and partisan that makes you look?
 
So I guess next these smart guys are going to tell us that government funded education isn't a liberal idea either. :thup:

Define "government funded?"

The initial method of small communities contributing to the building of a school house and salary of a school marm was hardly "liberal."

You attempt to abuse the language for your political purpose.

You fail miserably.

Standard Disclaimer: If you're abusing the language for trolling purposes, you're doing quite well...
 
I'm saying no such thing. Boy are you a dummy.

Roman Emperors built the first paved public roads, which you claim is a liberal idea. So you must believe they were liberals. Was the Colosseum a liberal idea? How about feeding Christians to the lions or crucifying them?

One need not be a liberal to support one single liberal idea, dummy.

That's true, knucklehead, but your rational for claiming public roads are a liberal idea is based solely the fact that government builds them. If that's the case, then Roman Emperors must have been liberals, otherwise, what makes the roads they built a "liberal idea?" If the roads were liberal, then so must be the Coliseum where Christians were fed to the lions. If one is liberal and the other not, then what's the distinction? Perhaps it's the fact that one reveals the idiocy of your ideas and the other doesn't.

You apparently support many liberal ideas, you've simply Jedi mind-tricked yourself into believing they're not liberal.

Best of luck with that. :thup:

Where have I said anything that indicates I support any of the ideas you call "liberal?"
 
So I guess next these smart guys are going to tell us that government funded education isn't a liberal idea either. :thup:

It definitely is a liberal idea, and as expected it's a total disaster.

Ok I get it, government funded programs you don't like are liberal and those you do like are not.

Do you have any idea how retarded and partisan that makes you look?

I'll concede your premise that anything the government funds is "liberal." That includes concentration camps, gulags, genocide, eugenics, slave labor, atomic bombs and napalm.
 
Like that PINKO COMMIE DWIGHT EISENHOWER?

Hell, he paid off America's WW2 debt and built the interstate system and ALL the infrastructure that present day teabaggers enjoyed as they aged, but think their posterity can do without.

Yes, heaven forfend we raise taxes to what they were back when American middle class upward mobility was the envy of the entire world. We can't have the workers sharing in the gains of the fruits of their labor. MANAGEMENT and shareholders should get all the dough....I mean where would the workers be without the BRAINS and inherited wealth of the upper classes, right?

Yes because nothing has changed since the 1950s. Also that was that marginal rate and no one paid that rate. The average rate the wealthy paid was around 28%. Last, he did not pay for it as we went 26 billion more in debt in his presidency. By the way, that would be 4.133 trillion counting inflation.


350px-US_Federal_Debt.png


Ike was President from 53-61. GOLLY...looks like the debt got paid down to ME!!!!


Got anything else you want to LIE about?
Oh that NO one paid that 91% top tax rate?

Gee, it appears that if you made over $400,000 in the 50's, that qualified for the top tax rate.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal Tax Brackets.pdf

Are you suggesting that NO ONE in the 50's had INCOME of over $400,00 a year?
No, what happened is those rich people simply COMMITTED TAX FRAUD and didn't pay what they owed. Is that you're arguement? That rich people shouldn't have high taxes because they'll just commit tax fraud and heaven forfend we throw them in jail for STEALING from everyone else!


Either that or GDP went up because of all the war goods being sold.
 
No one sees anything wrong with abandoning your home country over a minor raise in taxes? Good riddance to such disloyal selfish rubbish, no one should have access to a market where they are unwilling to pay the tax rate.

Why stay with a country bent on destroying you and taking what you own to give it to others?
 
Not certain but I used a calculator on the net to calculate how much 26 billion in 1960 would be in today's dollars.

Just to check and ran it through another site and it came up with the following

$26,000,000,000.00 in 1960 had the same buying power as $193,831,768,707.48 in 2011.
Annual inflation over this period was 4.02%.

Still a large sum of money to say it was all paid for.

Thaaaaat's more like it. Nothin' like the deficits post-Bush Tax cuts though.

Yes that had nothing to do with 9/11 and two wars. The fact is we are spending to much. It has certainly become taxation without representation. Look at that man in California that got killed because the police were to busy with the occupiers. People that don’t really pay much in taxes got the police while the man that was paying property tax had to police help.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top