who is more dangerous to the country?

[RadiomanATL]

My definition wasn't that far off from your definition

Actually, its light years away from what I said.

Corner. Yer still in it.

I said Neo-Cons were supportive of Corporatism, Militarism, and Unconstitutional abuses of power against our civil liberties... You said it meant they were conservatives who believed in expanding Government.
Are you telling me that Corporatism, Militarism, and abuses of power isn't an expansion of government?

Corporatism? No. That can be done within the current framework of the government, no expansion necessary.

Militarism? No, that can be done within the current framework of the government, no expansion necessary.

Unconstitutional acts? No, by its very definition that is NOT expanding the power of the government, since it is unconstitutional. If something is found to be unconstitutional, then it is not a power that has been granted to the government.

Face it, you got called on your attempted partisan dig and are trying to dance yer way out of it. No one buys it and no one is fooled.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Who is more dangerous to the USA

Would you believe and entire squad of Control Agents armed with automatic weapons with grenade launchers?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Who is more dangerous to the USA:

neocons who want to nuke any country who doesn't bow to us
or
liberals who wouldn't fight back even if 9/11 happened ten times over

First prove both statements are true. While I wait I'll offer a third choice, which is....who is more dangerous to the USA? Ignorant fucks like you.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The extremes of both parties suck the big one.

Not a really well worded pole.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The extremes of both parties suck the big one.

Not a really well worded pole.

****Poll/Pole**** I like your play on words, rep for u

Yes we all hate your poll bro, you mischaracterized both liberals and conservatives with the OP and poll options.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It would have to be the mentally retarded out there who have bankrupted us with entitlements and now propose to fix everthing with a NEW entitlement called the "Baucus Bill"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Liberals are a one trick pony...... TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND TAX & SPEND.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fuck that imbecile Obama and that wretched, smelly whore Pelosi.

 

[Elutherian]

Actually, its light years away from what I said.

Corner. Yer still in it.

I said Neo-Cons were supportive of Corporatism, Militarism, and Unconstitutional abuses of power against our civil liberties... You said it meant they were conservatives who believed in expanding Government.
Are you telling me that Corporatism, Militarism, and abuses of power isn't an expansion of government?

Corporatism? No. That can be done within the current framework of the government, no expansion necessary.

Militarism? No, that can be done within the current framework of the government, no expansion necessary.

Unconstitutional acts? No, by its very definition that is NOT expanding the power of the government, since it is unconstitutional. If something is found to be unconstitutional, then it is not a power that has been granted to the government.

Face it, you got called on your attempted partisan dig and are trying to dance yer way out of it. No one buys it and no one is fooled.

Whatever you say man... but I can't dance worth shit.

All I know is Bush was a neo-Con, and Corporatism, Militarism, and Unconstitutional abuses were trademarks of his policies.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I said Neo-Cons were supportive of Corporatism, Militarism, and Unconstitutional abuses of power against our civil liberties... You said it meant they were conservatives who believed in expanding Government.
Are you telling me that Corporatism, Militarism, and abuses of power isn't an expansion of government?

Corporatism? No. That can be done within the current framework of the government, no expansion necessary.

Militarism? No, that can be done within the current framework of the government, no expansion necessary.

Unconstitutional acts? No, by its very definition that is NOT expanding the power of the government, since it is unconstitutional. If something is found to be unconstitutional, then it is not a power that has been granted to the government.

Face it, you got called on your attempted partisan dig and are trying to dance yer way out of it. No one buys it and no one is fooled.

Whatever you say man... but I can't dance worth shit.

All I know is Bush was a neo-Con, and Corporatism, Militarism, and Unconstitutional abuses were trademarks of his policies.

Correlation does not equal causation.