Why you should never ever ever ever vote democrat

[Smash_Hits]

Because they're authoritarian whack jobs that redundantly violate the Bill of Rights.

They're one step below dictatorship and authoritarian rule... Hell they even have crazy shit in some states because they've brainwashed the public.

How have they violated the Bill of Rights anymore than any other political party?

 

[American Cowboy]

Okay, I'll bite, now that you have reaffirmed some of my reasons for not voting Democrat, can you give me a single reason why I should vote Republican?

Immie

I wish I could. They are just the lessor of two evils.

Personal freedom is what is important to me. Dems want to control everything. From Healthcare to Circumcision, From motorcycle helmets to seat belts, From your resturants smoking policy to what kind of car you drive. Obama even wants to tax cow farts, literially. These guys are way out of control.

It is OK if you don't have a mind of your own.

The problem is that the Republicans are right there with the Democrats. The only difference between the two parties is which freedoms they want to remove first.

Immie

Please give me example of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

 

[shintao]

I wish I could. They are just the lessor of two evils.

Personal freedom is what is important to me. Dems want to control everything. From Healthcare to Circumcision, From motorcycle helmets to seat belts, From your resturants smoking policy to what kind of car you drive. Obama even wants to tax cow farts, literially. These guys are way out of control.

It is OK if you don't have a mind of your own.

The problem is that the Republicans are right there with the Democrats. The only difference between the two parties is which freedoms they want to remove first.

Immie

Please give me exsample of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

Any freedom given up affects me personally.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I wish I could. They are just the lessor of two evils.

Personal freedom is what is important to me. Dems want to control everything. From Healthcare to Circumcision, From motorcycle helmets to seat belts, From your resturants smoking policy to what kind of car you drive. Obama even wants to tax cow farts, literially. These guys are way out of control.

It is OK if you don't have a mind of your own.

The problem is that the Republicans are right there with the Democrats. The only difference between the two parties is which freedoms they want to remove first.

Immie

Please give me exsample of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

You quote the great Benjamin Franklin in your signature. So here's another quote for you:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin

 

[Immanuel]

I wish I could. They are just the lessor of two evils.

Personal freedom is what is important to me. Dems want to control everything. From Healthcare to Circumcision, From motorcycle helmets to seat belts, From your resturants smoking policy to what kind of car you drive. Obama even wants to tax cow farts, literially. These guys are way out of control.

It is OK if you don't have a mind of your own.

The problem is that the Republicans are right there with the Democrats. The only difference between the two parties is which freedoms they want to remove first.

Immie

Please give me exsample of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

The Patriot Act is the major thing that I think about and I do not write it off as National Security. Other areas that I tend to place at the footsteps of the Republicans are things like workplace safety (gotta protect the corporations to hell with the workers), the environment (who needs fresh air and rivers with fresh water?... what we really need is to let the corporations police themselves). I think you mentioned gay marriage earlier. Although, I don't see that as a freedom, I do believe that the government should treat all citizens equally. TDM would argue the right of the poor to vote and don't tell her I said this, but she makes a good point of it.

There are a few of the issues that I can come up with quickly. I hope they suffice as answers to your question.

Immie

 

[American Cowboy]

The problem is that the Republicans are right there with the Democrats. The only difference between the two parties is which freedoms they want to remove first.

Immie

Please give me exsample of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

The Patriot Act is the major thing that I think about and I do not write it off as National Security. Other areas that I tend to place at the footsteps of the Republicans are things like workplace safety (gotta protect the corporations to hell with the workers), the environment (who needs fresh air and rivers with fresh water?... what we really need is to let the corporations police themselves). I think you mentioned gay marriage earlier. Although, I don't see that as a freedom, I do believe that the government should treat all citizens equally. TDM would argue the right of the poor to vote and don't tell her I said this, but she makes a good point of it.

There are a few of the issues that I can come up with quickly. I hope they suffice as answers to your question.

Immie

Then you would let Americans die unnecessarily. More proof the left lacks common sense.

As far as you other comment goes - The Government does not treat all citizens equally. A less qualified black man as a better chance getting a Goverment job or loan than a more qualified white man.

 

[American Cowboy]

The problem is that the Republicans are right there with the Democrats. The only difference between the two parties is which freedoms they want to remove first.

Immie

Please give me exsample of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

You quote the great Benjamin Franklin in your signature. So here's another quote for you:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was an intelligent man. Given the situation, Ben would agree with me. You do not let Americans die unnecessarily. It is like Lincoln who stopped Freedom of the Press and Warrentless Searches during the Civil War. Besides, I hate to tell you this, but FDR started these phone surveillance programs, not Bush.

 

[Immanuel]

Please give me exsample of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

The Patriot Act is the major thing that I think about and I do not write it off as National Security. Other areas that I tend to place at the footsteps of the Republicans are things like workplace safety (gotta protect the corporations to hell with the workers), the environment (who needs fresh air and rivers with fresh water?... what we really need is to let the corporations police themselves). I think you mentioned gay marriage earlier. Although, I don't see that as a freedom, I do believe that the government should treat all citizens equally. TDM would argue the right of the poor to vote and don't tell her I said this, but she makes a good point of it.

There are a few of the issues that I can come up with quickly. I hope they suffice as answers to your question.

Immie

Then you would let Americans die unnecessarily. More proof the left lacks common sense.

As far as you other comment goes - The Government does not treat all citizens equally. A less qualified black man as a better chance getting a Goverment job or loan than a more qualified white man.

Not sure what you mean by the opening sentence there. In reference to the Patriot Act? You and I probably disagree about that. I think we are at more risk from our own government (not party specific) than I do from outside sources if you get my drift and I am not so much talking about life and death although with the death penalty out there even that can apply.

Re treating citizens equally, you have a point, but then in that case it is the minority that is being assisted by the government whereas with gay marriage it is the minority that is being persecuted by the majority.

Immie

 

[Too Tall]

The following quote is from the article that posted the video.

"Plus the Fairness Doctrine, which essentially bans conservatives from radio, has been a sweetheart of the left for decades."

If you believe the above quote then someone is already controlling what you listen to.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezaaWshHik]YouTube - ‪"Government Control" FCC Regulating the Internet‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgcbIoIRi5s]YouTube - ‪Glenn Beck Reasonable questions for unreasonable times‬‏[/ame]

Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine' - FoxNews.com

The Fairness Doctrine only regulated Broadcasts over public airwaves on controversial matters.

It never regulated content and stations were given wide latitude in airing opposing points of view. What it did not allow was for a station to broadcast on public airwaves a single political perspective 24 hours a day 7 day a week.

Not one conservative radio show was ever pulled from the air because of the Fairness Doctrine.

The only leftie against the fairness doctrine in recent times is Obama, and you can bet your last dollar if it was passed in Congress,(no chance of that happening) he would gladly sign it into law.

In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President

Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine

On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

"I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.
I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine.

I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else — I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.
When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:
I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep

In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."

 

[Immanuel]

YouTube - ‪"Government Control" FCC Regulating the Internet‬‏

YouTube - ‪Glenn Beck Reasonable questions for unreasonable times‬‏

Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine' - FoxNews.com

The Fairness Doctrine only regulated Broadcasts over public airwaves on controversial matters.

It never regulated content and stations were given wide latitude in airing opposing points of view. What it did not allow was for a station to broadcast on public airwaves a single political perspective 24 hours a day 7 day a week.

Not one conservative radio show was ever pulled from the air because of the Fairness Doctrine.

The only leftie against the fairness doctrine in recent times is Obama, and you can bet your last dollar if it was passed in Congress,(no chance of that happening) he would gladly sign it into law.

In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President

Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine

On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

"I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.
I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.

In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."

It is funny how a program that is so anti-freedom can be given a name like "The Fairness Doctrine". The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to remove the rights of radio station owners to decide what programming they will broadcast and they call it... The Fairness Doctrine?

Immie

 

[JFK_USA]

Man oh man that was so much Bull Shit that I do not know where to begin so I will not.

The sheep says Baaaaaaaahhh

Pot meet kettle

 

[American Cowboy]

Man oh man that was so much Bull Shit that I do not know where to begin so I will not.

The sheep says Baaaaaaaahhh

Pot meet kettle

Sorry stupid. I have criticisms for both sides.

 

[Cal]

yeah, rightwingnut loons love small government except when governement interferes with women's bodies and imposing religion on people.

nutbars.

There are rights involved with baby killing, the baby's right to life. Abortion is murder.

You just said Democrats want to take away the freedom of choice.. . Damn, you're stupid. I'm with uscitizen.. So full of shit.. Where to start?

 

[American Cowboy]

yeah, rightwingnut loons love small government except when governement interferes with women's bodies and imposing religion on people.

nutbars.

There are rights involved with baby killing, the baby's right to life. Abortion is murder.

You just said Democrats want to take away the freedom of choice.. . Damn, you're stupid. I'm with uscitizen.. So full of shit.. Where to start?

Where tio start? How about pulling your head out of your ass. It is the baby's right to life, not the mothers right to murder.

 

[AquaAthena]

Do you value freedom? Freedom of Choice? Personal Freedom? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of thought? Freedom of personal responsibility?
Democrats are 100% against Freedom. I will prove this.
Let’s start at the local level. Do you think Harley riders voted for helmets? According to Democrats Harley riders are not smart enough to decide whether they should wear a helmet or not. This kind of law takes the personal decision away from the user because they think they know better. This is the mindset of the Democrat. They will tell you what is right for you.
Let’s say you own a restaurant. Should you as an owner get to decide what kind of food you serve? Of course. Should you get to decide your dress code policy? I should hope so. Then why would you not get to decide your own smoking policy? There would be some non smoking restaurants and some smoking restaurants. Shouldn’t it be up to the owner? This is a freedom that you as a business owner give up. These are the kinds of policies the Dems want to make for you.
Healthcare - The government wants to control your healthcare. You are not smart enough. They know what is better for you and your family, right? Sure! They will control your healthcare and help regulate what your health insurance will and will not cover. You do not need to decide which policy if right for you.
Economics – Democrats also think they know economics better than you do. What if you can’t pay your bills , you just open another credit card, right? Then, if you still can’t pay your bills, then you just open another credit card right? Why not just keep opening credit cards up? Isn’t that what the Democrat government is doing? They just keep spending and open up new credit cards. Right now they are trying to increase the debt ceiling (aka asking for more credit).
There are other issues – like gun control, shutting down Fox News, etc. etc. etc. – regulation, regulation regulation.
Big Government or Freedom you cannot have both.
Now there are a few reasons to vote Democrat:
1. You are too stupid to make our own decisions and you need the government to decide for you.
2. You want the handout the Dems will dish out.
3. You are a complete socialist and have not learned that Socialism continues to fail time and time again.
Don’t be a moron. Never ever ever ever vote Democrat

I never have and never will. The Democrat and Conservative idealogies are widening as we post....

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Please give me exsample of Freedoms you are giving up.

The only thing I can think of has to do with the Patriot Act...which I right off as National Security and the other is Abortion which is protecting the rights of the unborn baby.

What else is there?

You quote the great Benjamin Franklin in your signature. So here's another quote for you:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was an intelligent man. Given the situation, Ben would agree with me. You do not let Americans die unnecessarily. It is like Lincoln who stopped Freedom of the Press and Warrentless Searches during the Civil War. Besides, I hate to tell you this, but FDR started these phone surveillance programs, not Bush.

Ben Franklin's quote is very cut and dry. You don't know what Franklin would have thought, or agreed to-and neither do I. But don't pretend like you do-it's actually pretty said. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back up your claim-I'd be all ears to it.

Franklin said this, and we both know he was around for the Boston Massacre, British oppression, and other similar serious threats to American lives. The reason why Franklin (and the other founding fathers) fought the British was for freedom from oppression-and wanted the least amount of power given to the federal government as reasonably possible. And he still believed (and stated) that we should not give up any liberty for any sense of security.

edit: And I'm not sure about you, but I don't consider upholding, and keeping our liberty as an "unnecessary".

 

[American Cowboy]

You quote the great Benjamin Franklin in your signature. So here's another quote for you:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was an intelligent man. Given the situation, Ben would agree with me. You do not let Americans die unnecessarily. It is like Lincoln who stopped Freedom of the Press and Warrentless Searches during the Civil War. Besides, I hate to tell you this, but FDR started these phone surveillance programs, not Bush.

Ben Franklin's quote is very cut and dry. You don't know what Franklin would have thought, or agreed to-and neither do I. But don't pretend like you do-it's actually pretty said. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back up your claim-I'd be all ears to it.

Franklin said this, and we both know he was around for the Boston Massacre, British oppression, and other similar serious threats to American lives. The reason why Franklin (and the other founding fathers) fought the British was for freedom from oppression-and wanted the least amount of power given to the federal government as reasonably possible. And he still believed (and stated) that we should not give up any liberty for any sense of security.

edit: And I'm not sure about you, but I don't consider upholding, and keeping our liberty as an "unnecessary".

I disagree, Ben Franklin had common sense. You lefties do not. The Patriot Act was just not that intrusive. Lincoln understood the Founders better than you do and he did far worse than the Patriot Act.

Regardless of what Frankiln thought. Even if he would have stuck to his guns on thps issue, I would have disagreed with him. I say human lives are more important than principle and no just man would let Americans die.

Just about all the hypocrites on the left would waterboard a terrorist to same your familes. This should be know different.

 

[edthecynic]

Ben Franklin had common sense. You lefties do not.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Benjamin Franklin was an intelligent man. Given the situation, Ben would agree with me. You do not let Americans die unnecessarily. It is like Lincoln who stopped Freedom of the Press and Warrentless Searches during the Civil War. Besides, I hate to tell you this, but FDR started these phone surveillance programs, not Bush.

Ben Franklin's quote is very cut and dry. You don't know what Franklin would have thought, or agreed to-and neither do I. But don't pretend like you do-it's actually pretty said. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back up your claim-I'd be all ears to it.

Franklin said this, and we both know he was around for the Boston Massacre, British oppression, and other similar serious threats to American lives. The reason why Franklin (and the other founding fathers) fought the British was for freedom from oppression-and wanted the least amount of power given to the federal government as reasonably possible. And he still believed (and stated) that we should not give up any liberty for any sense of security.

edit: And I'm not sure about you, but I don't consider upholding, and keeping our liberty as an "unnecessary".

I disagree, Ben Franklin had common sense. You lefties do not. The Patriot Act was just not that intrusive. Lincoln understood the Founders better than you do and he did far worse than the Patriot Act.

Regardless of what Frankiln thought. Even if he would have stuck to his guns on thps issue, I would have disagreed with him. I say human lives are more important than principle and no just man would let Americans die.

Just about all the hypocrites on the left would waterboard a terrorist to same your familes. This should be know different.

You obviously aren't aware of my postings if you think I'm a "leftie". I have almost as many right views, as I do left views.

And for the record, the Libertarian party is against the Patriot Act-I hope you don't consider them to be lefties now do you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you value freedom? Freedom of Choice? Personal Freedom? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of thought? Freedom of personal responsibility?
Democrats are 100% against Freedom. I will prove this.
Let’s start at the local level. Do you think Harley riders voted for helmets? According to Democrats Harley riders are not smart enough to decide whether they should wear a helmet or not. This kind of law takes the personal decision away from the user because they think they know better. This is the mindset of the Democrat. They will tell you what is right for you.
Let’s say you own a restaurant. Should you as an owner get to decide what kind of food you serve? Of course. Should you get to decide your dress code policy? I should hope so. Then why would you not get to decide your own smoking policy? There would be some non smoking restaurants and some smoking restaurants. Shouldn’t it be up to the owner? This is a freedom that you as a business owner give up. These are the kinds of policies the Dems want to make for you.
Healthcare - The government wants to control your healthcare. You are not smart enough. They know what is better for you and your family, right? Sure! They will control your healthcare and help regulate what your health insurance will and will not cover. You do not need to decide which policy if right for you.
Economics – Democrats also think they know economics better than you do. What if you can’t pay your bills , you just open another credit card, right? Then, if you still can’t pay your bills, then you just open another credit card right? Why not just keep opening credit cards up? Isn’t that what the Democrat government is doing? They just keep spending and open up new credit cards. Right now they are trying to increase the debt ceiling (aka asking for more credit).
There are other issues – like gun control, shutting down Fox News, etc. etc. etc. – regulation, regulation regulation.
Big Government or Freedom you cannot have both.
Now there are a few reasons to vote Democrat:
1. You are too stupid to make our own decisions and you need the government to decide for you.
2. You want the handout the Dems will dish out.
3. You are a complete socialist and have not learned that Socialism continues to fail time and time again.
Don’t be a moron. Never ever ever ever vote Democrat

Please do't feed the trolls.