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.
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. You don't get to hijack and then claim not being allowed to hijack it is "fascism".Which side fought and still is hostile to gay marriage?
Only one side has divided this nation by color and it sure as hell wasn't the Republicans. Oops!!Would your version of “freedom” look a lot like Apartheid?
Bingo!! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!I love how you rewrite history, and completely twist the facts to suit your narrative. Everyone was against gay marriage 40 years ago.
That's because - like all Democrats - Bill Clinton lacks the integrity to introduce bills that align how he truly feels. He's all about power and money. And if duping the low-IQ left gets him money and power, then he's all too happy to do that (while laughing at the low-IQ left).The Defense of Marriage Act was introduced by a Republican and passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate. It was not "Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act". The Bill belonged to the Republican Party.
Would love to hear you explain how you can go "too far" with the free market.On economics, I think both both parties go too far in their direction.
You're a proud communist. People just laugh when you speak.Sounds like the right-wing Republicans and their intolerant attitude toward anyone who disagrees with them. Your post is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Under-regulation, obviously. As we saw with the 2008/2009 Meltdown. I know you don't know what I'm talking about.Would love to hear you explain how you can go "too far" with the free market.
I too wondered why you would choose one party over the the other if both were so horrible and incompetent. I think you are making things more complicated than they need to be. Trumpism, which you ridicule frequently, isn't about skin color or thinking Trump is a great human being. It is just people from Indiana, Iowa, ect, that just want the government out of their pockets and lives. I think a pretty good argument could be made why they would want to be left alone. I don't see the nefarious element you speak of. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it isn't evident to a great many people. I see Trumpism as people who are hungry for common sense, and are tired of the government wasting their tax dollars and lying to them all the time. I don't get how Christianity or skin color enter the picture. A lot of people are scratching their heads wondering why you dislike them to such an extent. Have a good one.I didn't vote Democrat over Republican in reality. I had to vote against Trumpism (not the individual, the movement), and voting directly against it was/is the only option.
What I have been seeing over the last couple of decades in this country is a mad dash to lower standards and expectations at every opportunity. The Left has done it with the culture and with minorities, and now the Right is doing it with its political leaders. It began with Palin.
Look, you're being civil, and I very much appreciate that. I'm not trying to change your mind, but you've asked a reasonable question. So:
1. Trump, Boebert, MTG, Santos -- these people shouldn't be anywhere near the halls of legislative power. Yes, I have real problems with some Democrats, but this has gone too far. Just as the Left elevated people like Kim freaking Kardashian on the basis of NOTHING, these people have been elevated for the wrong reasons.
2. This right wing media-driven alternate universe has created this generation of mal-informed, paranoid, angry people who exist within their own separate information ecosystem. A country cannot survive like this, and our elected "leaders" have cravenly sold their soul to enable it.
3. Anything that makes people really, truly believe that Donald Trump is a brilliant, patriotic, honest Christian man is perverting minds. And again, I'm not talking about the individual, I'm talking about whatever the hell it is that has done this to so many people.
4. You may have been waiting for this, but this blatant love affair with White Christian Nationalists only confirms my concerns. Trump's supporters will deny it exists, and that only makes me more concerned because that only enables more of it. It's not being hidden very well.
If you asked me the same question tomorrow, I'd probably answer it in a different way. I'm still trying to get my head around this, but I know that I have to vote against it. I refuse to believe that we aren't better than this. We have to be better than this arrogant, ignorant, paranoia. The issues are secondary.
I know where it is, Mac! It's literally at the US Constitution (which has been mocked, violated, and abused by the left).Instead of screaming and poo-throwing, both ends need to understand that a smart goal would be to communicate, collaborate, and find points on the spectrum at which (a) we have a safety net that is worthy of the most prosperous country on the planet, and (b) we are not maintaining a government that is so large in cost and scope that it is placing too much drag on our dynamic economy and on human potential. Exactly where is that point? I don't know. I'd like us to work together and figure it out.
Except that the "meltdown" was the result of Bill Clinton's government regulation. His "Community Reinvestment Act" forced banks to give loans that they wouldn't previously give.Under-regulation, obviously. As we saw with the 2008/2009 Meltdown.
I think you automatically assume that people want anarchy and no regulation. That may be putting words in other people's mouths. Like I said, nobody wants to get rid of the FDA. You know what people are talking about when they say they want less government. To use what you consider a slur against them and imply they are anarchists is a bit of a reach.Under-regulation, obviously. As we saw with the 2008/2009 Meltdown. I know you don't know what I'm talking about.
Trumpsters have been trained to believe that proper regulation is always bad, that it's the bane of capitalism. In reality, it's a critical component of capitalism.
Again, I know you don't know what I'm talking about, and I wouldn't try to convince someone like you of anything. You asked, I answered.
I didn't use that word.I think you automatically assume that people want anarchy and no regulation. That may be putting words in other people's mouths. Like I said, nobody wants to get rid of the FDA. You know what people are talking about when they say they want less government. To use what you consider a slur against them and imply they are anarchists is a bit of a reach.
You're a proud communist. People just laugh when you speak.
Educated people know that communism resulted in the mass-murder of more than 80 million people in the 20th Century alone. It also eventually collapsed every nation that ever embraced it.
I guess you didn't know this, but Alan Greenspan admitted before Congress that he screwed up by refusing the regulate the derivatives (CMOs, CDOs, CDSs) that brought the system down. CLTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns BEGGED him, publicly, for years, and he wouldn't budge. Later, he had to apologize. He fucked up. He thought the system could self-regulate. All this, while Dubya was bragging about the real estate market.Except that the "meltdown" was the result of Bill Clinton's government regulation. His "Community Reinvestment Act" forced banks to give loans that they wouldn't previously give.
Had the free market been left alone to operate, those risky loans aren't given, and thus there is no massive collapse.
So we've seen how government regulation causes collapse. Can you provide us with a legitimate instance of too much free market? I'm being serious. If there is an instance, I would very much like to know about it (and would gladly acknowledge it if someone can provide it).
I am not sure you can argue against all safety nets. That seems extreme. If you aren't giving other people's money to able bodied adults, I'm probably ok with it. As much as FDR is vilified, he literally kept people from starving. Don't you have to admit there are common sense things government can do to help those who need actually need it.I know where it is, Mac! It's literally at the US Constitution (which has been mocked, violated, and abused by the left).
I firmly believe that all "safety nets" should be through charity, as intended. However, if it must be done by government, that it must be done at the state level, as all of those federal programs are egregiously unconstitutional.
No reason on Earth why Democrats can't get behind each state designing their own safety net for their citizens. The reason they don't is because of power. Doing it at the federal level ensures tremendous power.
Yeah, the southern strategy and the rise of the racist south.Only one side has divided this nation by color and it sure as hell wasn't the Republicans. Oops!!
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. You don't get to hijack and then claim not being allowed to hijack it is "fascism".
You don't get to call a Ford a Lamborghini (there are intellectual property rights) and you don't get to call a union between 2 men or 2 women, "marriage". Sorry.
That was gwb fuckup.Who eliminated privacy? Barack Obama and the Democrats. More unconstitutional surveillance against the American people (without a warrant) than any administration in US history.
My posting of the meaning of fascism is fact.Exactly. You lied. I showed you how easy it is to type anything. You cannot support your position with facts, logic, and reason because you're wrong and you know you're wrong.
