Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then you acknowledge that republicans don't enjoy the support of the majority of the people, or even a majority of the voters.
Which is my entire point. Though thank you for dismissing the support of the majority of the people as 'whining'.
I'm sorry you hate our system of government, you are free to leave to one that suits you more, or you can get 3/4ths of the States to agree to change it. Since neither of those is likely to happen, man up loser.
You seem confused. The folks talking about 'leaving' are among your ilk. As all the secessionist babble in our age is deeply imbedded among conservatives.
Me, I'm simply acknowledging a fact that we both know and you don't even dispute: that more people voted for democratic candidates for the house and senate than republican. And it wasn't even close, with a 1 million vote and 5 million vote lead respectively.
And we both know I'm right.
And as we both know, it doesn't mean spit. Like I said, count yourself lucky you have more than 26 senators because you only control 13 States, their populations mean nothing.
It does when republicans expect the people to side with them in disputes or policy positions that the people simply don't support. There is a reason why the GOP has backed down over and over in both the House and Senate despite having the majority in the former for half a decade and the latter for half a year:
The people aren't with them. And they know it.
The last thing I will ever do is make excuses for spineless republicans, I've told my reps over and over that you don't dig a fighting position and do nothing but shit in it.
I'm sorry you hate our system of government, you are free to leave to one that suits you more, or you can get 3/4ths of the States to agree to change it. Since neither of those is likely to happen, man up loser.
You seem confused. The folks talking about 'leaving' are among your ilk. As all the secessionist babble in our age is deeply imbedded among conservatives.
Me, I'm simply acknowledging a fact that we both know and you don't even dispute: that more people voted for democratic candidates for the house and senate than republican. And it wasn't even close, with a 1 million vote and 5 million vote lead respectively.
And we both know I'm right.
And as we both know, it doesn't mean spit. Like I said, count yourself lucky you have more than 26 senators because you only control 13 States, their populations mean nothing.
It does when republicans expect the people to side with them in disputes or policy positions that the people simply don't support. There is a reason why the GOP has backed down over and over in both the House and Senate despite having the majority in the former for half a decade and the latter for half a year:
The people aren't with them. And they know it.
The last thing I will ever do is make excuses for spineless republicans, I've told my reps over and over that you don't dig a fighting position and do nothing but shit in it.
They're spineless....because they know the people aren't with them. The very lack of fortitude you object to is the product of the very factors you say insist 'don't mean spit'.
Demonstrating how right I am yet again.
You seem confused. The folks talking about 'leaving' are among your ilk. As all the secessionist babble in our age is deeply imbedded among conservatives.
Me, I'm simply acknowledging a fact that we both know and you don't even dispute: that more people voted for democratic candidates for the house and senate than republican. And it wasn't even close, with a 1 million vote and 5 million vote lead respectively.
And we both know I'm right.
And as we both know, it doesn't mean spit. Like I said, count yourself lucky you have more than 26 senators because you only control 13 States, their populations mean nothing.
It does when republicans expect the people to side with them in disputes or policy positions that the people simply don't support. There is a reason why the GOP has backed down over and over in both the House and Senate despite having the majority in the former for half a decade and the latter for half a year:
The people aren't with them. And they know it.
The last thing I will ever do is make excuses for spineless republicans, I've told my reps over and over that you don't dig a fighting position and do nothing but shit in it.
They're spineless....because they know the people aren't with them. The very lack of fortitude you object to is the product of the very factors you say insist 'don't mean spit'.
Demonstrating how right I am yet again.
Right, and your dear leader represents the folks that didn't vote. You can whine all night a claim you proved a negative but try in on someone else, I ain't buy'n. Night night.
And the president started out opposed to gay marriage. Some people change. Republicans remain as ignorant as fuck. Something we can both agree on.LBJ is called a racist because he has been charged with an unsubstantiated quote from some right winger with an agenda insisting LBJ said the N word. It's like taking Breitbart's word about something Obama supposedly said.Are you talking about some conservative who has been dead for years?There is none because both follow the same principles.
Liberal Define Liberal at Dictionary.com
liberal
adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political orreligious affairs.
2.
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to apolitical party advocating measures of progressivepolitical reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocatingliberalism, especially the freedom of the individualand governmental guarantees of individual rightsand liberties.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts ofmaximum individual freedom possible, especiallyas guaranteed by law and secured bygovernmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action,especially with respect to matters of personalbelief or expression:
a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or relating to representational forms ofgovernment rather than aristocracies andmonarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:
a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
I'd say that describes Robert (KKK) Byrd perfectly, LMAO.
Right, a conservative, LMAO. How dare you call one of the icons of the commiecrat party a conservative. Byrd and LBJ were some of the biggest racist ever produced by the dems, now you can add your dear leader to the list.
LBJ fought for black rights but secretly hated them. Uh, hello, knock knock. If you hate them, why fight for their rights? That only makes sense to ignorant and delusional right wingers. Which, of course, is most of them.
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker PolitiFact Texas
You were saying?
So you admit that confederates are liberals.This was explained to little rdean many times in past threads. Looks like enough time has passed since then, that he feels he can reopen the subject and pretend ignorance again, and try to fool people into believing it hasn't been explained.Why do Conservatives on the USMB keep insisting Confederates are Liberals????
Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
When liberals can't justify their positions on current issues, they just go back and dig up old ones, and hope nobody remembers they already lost the argument on those, too.
Funniest part of today's thread, is where little rdean tries to claim that others don't know American history.
Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
Yeah...nice lie....confederates were democrats and no, they were not classical liberals. they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery...you guys lie by trying to equate modern conservatism to the racism of the democrats....,,nice try....
Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
Yeah...nice lie....confederates were democrats and no, they were not classical liberals. they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery...you guys lie by trying to equate modern conservatism to the racism of the democrats....,,nice try....
They wanted to preserve slavery via the power of states rights.
Now where on the political spectrum are the most zealous states rights advocates nowadays?
In the Democratic Party?
The "we are a Christian Nation" Confederates called themselves the Conservative South.
They right out charged Northern "Yanks" were nothing but a bunch of "licentious socialists and communists."
Just like a lot of Conservatives still do.
It's very simple, even you should be able to understand, in a representative form a government it matters most where the majority of votes are cast for a particular party, not how many overall votes were cast. 37 States are run by republicans vs 13 for the dems so we should have larger majorities in congress than we have, too many safe commiecrat districts and populous commiecrat States. Just count yourself lucky you have more than 26 senators.
It does if you're trying to portray that vote as representing the will of the majority of the American people. And it certainly does when gerrymandering dramatically skews representation disproportionate to support among the people, even within a state.
The American people more often support Democratic positions than they do Republican position. And the vote in 2012 reflected this.
Then go find yourself a direct democracy, and leave our representative republic alone. Just because the commie States are more populous doesn't mean they can dictate to the rest of us. You got a problem with that get an amendment passed.
Don't pretend that republicans enjoy the support of the majority of the people, or even the majority of the voters. Or that republican positions are those of the majority of Americans. They aren't.
And as your complete and fastidious avoidance of the topic demonstrates elegantly, you clearly recognize these facts.
No I am elegantly demonstrating I don't give a rats ass about your whining, mobs don't rule here, the country was set up that way and it won't change, so get used to it.
Then you acknowledge that republicans don't enjoy the support of the majority of the people, or even a majority of the voters.
Which is my entire point. Though thank you for dismissing the support of the majority of the people as 'whining'.
Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
It's very simple, even you should be able to understand, in a representative form a government it matters most where the majority of votes are cast for a particular party, not how many overall votes were cast. 37 States are run by republicans vs 13 for the dems so we should have larger majorities in congress than we have, too many safe commiecrat districts and populous commiecrat States. Just count yourself lucky you have more than 26 senators.
It does if you're trying to portray that vote as representing the will of the majority of the American people. And it certainly does when gerrymandering dramatically skews representation disproportionate to support among the people, even within a state.
The American people more often support Democratic positions than they do Republican position. And the vote in 2012 reflected this.
Then go find yourself a direct democracy, and leave our representative republic alone. Just because the commie States are more populous doesn't mean they can dictate to the rest of us. You got a problem with that get an amendment passed.
Don't pretend that republicans enjoy the support of the majority of the people, or even the majority of the voters. Or that republican positions are those of the majority of Americans. They aren't.
And as your complete and fastidious avoidance of the topic demonstrates elegantly, you clearly recognize these facts.
Don't pretend that republicans enjoy the support of the majority of the people, or even the majority of the voters. Or that republican positions are those of the majority of Americans. They aren't.
2012
You do realize that land doesn't vote....but people do? Right? Again, you're confusing population density for public support. Here's a population density map:
Notice a pattern? Generally speaking higher population densities go democrat. Republicans would rule if dirt could vote. Alas, people do.
When Republicans say "states rights", they mean they want the right to fuck over minorities living in "their" states. If the federal government has to pay tax payer money to keep Red States from going under, then they should have a say as to what goes on in those states.Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
Yeah...nice lie....confederates were democrats and no, they were not classical liberals. they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery...you guys lie by trying to equate modern conservatism to the racism of the democrats....,,nice try....
They wanted to preserve slavery via the power of states rights.
Now where on the political spectrum are the most zealous states rights advocates nowadays?
In the Democratic Party?
Yeah...I heard an interview with an author....has a new book about states reclaiming power from the federal government and he asked the question.....why is the idea of States exerting their Constitutional rights today smeared with the democrats claiming states rights so they could keep slavery. He pointed out that the democrat party was the party of slavery but they are never smeared with the history of slavery.
States Rights is another idea that is being smeared by the democrats, who used the idea to fight for slavery, because if the States exert their Constitutionally enumerated rights...it takes power away from the concentration of power that the democrats want...to push their agenda today.
States have rights enumerated in the Constitution...if fact any power not expressly given to the federal government belongs to the states...as a check and balance to federal overreach.....that the democrats wanted to use that power to keep slavery says nothing about the authority of the states......like saying a democrat who is a teacher who molests kids means all teachers are bad.....
The Republicans support the Constitution....and the separation of powers between the States and the Federal government, that work as checks and balances against corruption, and concentration of too much power........
The democrats...hate the concept of states rights now because they have "evolved" they don't want to control just black people like the old democrats did....they want to control all Americans...and so they want an all powerful central government....
They changed focus....not the goal....
Not during three of the last four presidential elections. How do you explain that?It does if you're trying to portray that vote as representing the will of the majority of the American people. And it certainly does when gerrymandering dramatically skews representation disproportionate to support among the people, even within a state.
The American people more often support Democratic positions than they do Republican position. And the vote in 2012 reflected this.
Then go find yourself a direct democracy, and leave our representative republic alone. Just because the commie States are more populous doesn't mean they can dictate to the rest of us. You got a problem with that get an amendment passed.
Don't pretend that republicans enjoy the support of the majority of the people, or even the majority of the voters. Or that republican positions are those of the majority of Americans. They aren't.
And as your complete and fastidious avoidance of the topic demonstrates elegantly, you clearly recognize these facts.
Don't pretend that republicans enjoy the support of the majority of the people, or even the majority of the voters. Or that republican positions are those of the majority of Americans. They aren't.
2012
You do realize that land doesn't vote....but people do? Right? Again, you're confusing population density for public support. Here's a population density map:
Notice a pattern? Generally speaking higher population densities go democrat. Republicans would rule if dirt could vote. Alas, people do.
wanna notice a pattern
all across this land during the last election
down to the dog catcher the right won
Read and learn:Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
When Republicans say "states rights", they mean they want the right to fuck over minorities living in "their" states. If the federal government has to pay tax payer money to keep Red States from going under, then they should have a say as to what goes on in those states.Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
Yeah...nice lie....confederates were democrats and no, they were not classical liberals. they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery...you guys lie by trying to equate modern conservatism to the racism of the democrats....,,nice try....
They wanted to preserve slavery via the power of states rights.
Now where on the political spectrum are the most zealous states rights advocates nowadays?
In the Democratic Party?
Yeah...I heard an interview with an author....has a new book about states reclaiming power from the federal government and he asked the question.....why is the idea of States exerting their Constitutional rights today smeared with the democrats claiming states rights so they could keep slavery. He pointed out that the democrat party was the party of slavery but they are never smeared with the history of slavery.
States Rights is another idea that is being smeared by the democrats, who used the idea to fight for slavery, because if the States exert their Constitutionally enumerated rights...it takes power away from the concentration of power that the democrats want...to push their agenda today.
States have rights enumerated in the Constitution...if fact any power not expressly given to the federal government belongs to the states...as a check and balance to federal overreach.....that the democrats wanted to use that power to keep slavery says nothing about the authority of the states......like saying a democrat who is a teacher who molests kids means all teachers are bad.....
The Republicans support the Constitution....and the separation of powers between the States and the Federal government, that work as checks and balances against corruption, and concentration of too much power........
The democrats...hate the concept of states rights now because they have "evolved" they don't want to control just black people like the old democrats did....they want to control all Americans...and so they want an all powerful central government....
They changed focus....not the goal....
"Rev. Perryman also writes: “Modern-day Democrats must stop preaching that they are the compassionate party of black people and confess that it was their predecessors who started many of the racist practices that we are now trying to eradicate. History clearly shows two things: (1) that the roots of racism grew deep in the hearts and souls of the Democrats and (2) without the past efforts of the Radical Republicans and the Abolitionists, the Civil Rights Legislation of the sixties would not have been possible. Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights by passing legislation and instituting programs that Democrats’ were adamantly opposed to, such as:
1. The Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 to abolish slavery.
2. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 to give Negroes citizenship and protect freedmen from Black Codes and other repressive legislation.
3. The First Reconstruction Act of 1867 to provide more efficient Government of the Rebel- or Democrat-controlled states.
4. The Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to make all persons born in the United States citizens. Part of this Amendment specifically states “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
5. The Fifteenth Amendment of 1870 to give the right to vote to every citizen.
6. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to stop Klan terrorists to terrorized black voters, Republicans, white teachers who taught blacks, and Abolitionists.
7. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights and to prohibit racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.
8. Freedmen Bureau was social programs established by Republicans to feed, protect, and educate the former slaves.
9. The 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act were signed into law by President Eisenhower who also established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1958, a commission that was rejected by Truman during his administration.
10. The 1964 Civil Rights Act which key Republicans pushed law through while key Southern Democrats like Al Gore Sr. debated against its passage. More Republicans (in percentages) voted for this law than Democrats.”
Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
When Republicans say "states rights", they mean they want the right to fuck over minorities living in "their" states. If the federal government has to pay tax payer money to keep Red States from going under, then they should have a say as to what goes on in those states.Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?
Yeah...nice lie....confederates were democrats and no, they were not classical liberals. they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery...you guys lie by trying to equate modern conservatism to the racism of the democrats....,,nice try....
They wanted to preserve slavery via the power of states rights.
Now where on the political spectrum are the most zealous states rights advocates nowadays?
In the Democratic Party?
Yeah...I heard an interview with an author....has a new book about states reclaiming power from the federal government and he asked the question.....why is the idea of States exerting their Constitutional rights today smeared with the democrats claiming states rights so they could keep slavery. He pointed out that the democrat party was the party of slavery but they are never smeared with the history of slavery.
States Rights is another idea that is being smeared by the democrats, who used the idea to fight for slavery, because if the States exert their Constitutionally enumerated rights...it takes power away from the concentration of power that the democrats want...to push their agenda today.
States have rights enumerated in the Constitution...if fact any power not expressly given to the federal government belongs to the states...as a check and balance to federal overreach.....that the democrats wanted to use that power to keep slavery says nothing about the authority of the states......like saying a democrat who is a teacher who molests kids means all teachers are bad.....
The Republicans support the Constitution....and the separation of powers between the States and the Federal government, that work as checks and balances against corruption, and concentration of too much power........
The democrats...hate the concept of states rights now because they have "evolved" they don't want to control just black people like the old democrats did....they want to control all Americans...and so they want an all powerful central government....
They changed focus....not the goal....
And the president started out opposed to gay marriage. Some people change. Republicans remain as ignorant as fuck. Something we can both agree on.LBJ is called a racist because he has been charged with an unsubstantiated quote from some right winger with an agenda insisting LBJ said the N word. It's like taking Breitbart's word about something Obama supposedly said.Are you talking about some conservative who has been dead for years?I'd say that describes Robert (KKK) Byrd perfectly, LMAO.
Right, a conservative, LMAO. How dare you call one of the icons of the commiecrat party a conservative. Byrd and LBJ were some of the biggest racist ever produced by the dems, now you can add your dear leader to the list.
LBJ fought for black rights but secretly hated them. Uh, hello, knock knock. If you hate them, why fight for their rights? That only makes sense to ignorant and delusional right wingers. Which, of course, is most of them.
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker PolitiFact Texas
You were saying?
