Why Do I Never See "Democrat Does......"?

I don't disagree with that statement actually. I was simply saying nothing is going to change from your statement.

I wasn't looking to inspire change, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Civil discourse has nothing to do with everyone holding hands and singing cumbaya though. It's about coming to the table and actually discussing the various viewpoints held instead of just taking a dump and throwing it at the other person lol.

People should have a difference in opinion. It would be pointless and boring if we didn't.

I'm older than 25, have responsibility, jobs and raising a family and have only gotten more progressive because of it.

Hell I voted libertarian in 2008.

Do you have a child or children and, if so, what gender? There's a moderate correlation between being the father of daughters and shifting towards the Republican party.

Also, progressive doesn't strictly imply liberal. Libertarians are progressive fiscal conservatives by, ironically, wanting to return to what conservatism used to be instead of embracing the schlock that it has become. By the same token, they're progressive social liberals in a markedly conservative style by wanting everyone to have equal access while keeping the government involved as little as possible.

Why the hell do we use terms like "liberal" and "conservative" when they're practically meaningless outside of context, by the way? It's no wonder both are seen as insults given they have about as much literal meaning as the average swear word (one is rarely talking about excrement when saying "***," as a f'rinstance).

I have two girls, I voted libertarian in 2008.

Can you pull up the study, and just out of curiosity, is there a voting pattern with mothers with sons? Sounds like it's worth a read.

Anthony Weiner.

People from all walks of life screw up.

Daughter, and you're right, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" aren't really used within their proper content at all.

By the basic standard of today I'd be considered a democrat by most, but I am really more of an independent, as there's too many things on both sides of the spectrum that I disagree with.

Because Democrat's never do anything wrong of course, that's why.

In this we have a problem: there have actually been a lot of studies done on this particular subject and the results are far from consistent. That's why I called it a "moderate correlation." There's a similar moderate correlation between having a Republican father and a Democratic daughter, incidentally.

What I recall didn't mention anything about sons nor mothers nor any combination involving the two. I suspect the original article I read (if not some of the analyses I queried afterwards) was written with a certain feminist agenda. Either way, a simple google search should return a bunch of reading material if you are interested.

I doesn't matter if there is a "D" or "R" or any other letter in the alphabet next to their name.

Idiots are idiots.

The only thing we can do is prevent idiots from coming to power.

So far for this millennium, we are batting 0/2.

Lets see who comes to bat next time.

I would call Obama a lot of things, but idiot is not one of them.

I know you wouldn't Jet, you practically worship the ground he craps on.

The way he bumbles everything up, whether it's keeping his own appointed people alive, keeping criminals from acquiring weapons, maintaining world peace, maintaining domestic peace, or even maintaining legislative peace. Never in American history has the nation been so divided, and that's including what Buchanan created. He isn't exactly a role model of the presidential society, where there are only 44 members of in the entire history of America.

That makes him either the most idiotic president in history, or the most cruel and sadistic president in history. Which title would you want him to have?

lolwhat?

I don't like the guy, just for actual reasons instead of made up talking points that only make sense in neocon land.

It makes him neither, considering half of the nonsense you just sputtered can be attributed to the obstructionist opponents of the guy you just criticized, they've gone on record stating it, there is no denying it, yet you will continue to do so.

You're severely delusional if you think I'm pro Obama though. But I don't expect you to understand such a basic concept.

King if you're smarter than Obama, why haven't you been elected yet?

that's probably not the greatest logical argument in the world there man.

He wasn't making a logical argument. That's rather the point.

I thought maintaining world peace was under Miss America's jurisdiction.

To be president you must like having hands shoved up your *** so far they can control your every movement and you must enjoy being a puppet.

Define "they," please.

While most savvy people have a pretty good handle on who was holding the gun to Dubya's temple, I am completely unaware of any puppetmaster in the current Oval Office beyond the fellow behind the desk and the only pulling of strings done by Clinton's administration seems to have involved the steno pool rather than the POTUS. Similarly, although this is going back further than my personal experience allows and I may have missed something, I don't know that the original George Bush was particularly manipulated, if only because he'd been playing the shadow-president for about 5 years before ascending to the official position owing to Reagan's gradual decline.

Or are you just saying that most Presidents have been unhappy in their jobs? I doubt you'd find many that would admit that, even if it were true.

My opinion is that all other opinions different then my own are invalid and stupid.

In all seriousness though, we all have st upid moments, none of us are perfect, and surely no one would want to be president right now instead of Obama.

If you do, good luck.

You were on the web 19 years ago? I turn 70 this year.

There is another error too.

i think he means somethingsomething

Oh, fine, I'll bite...

I had to check the image URL just to know who that is (George Soros, for anyone else who doesn't recognize him). That he is rich and supports liberal policy does not make him a puppetmaster like *** Cheney or Karl Rove nor even a substitute teacher like Bush, Sr. So can you back up your claim? For once?

And spouses don't count. Political marriages are built on both partners working in lock-step. It's rarely been as blatant as the past few Democratic Presidents, but don't imagine Laura or Barbara or Nancy were idly knitting and watching Regis during their husbands' tenures.

What would you like to see? Has anyone backed up a claim that Cheney and or Karl Rove was puppetmaster?

idk just shooting from the hip, I don't feel like redoing research but you can validate if you choose: follow the money in Media Matters and the Tides Foundation, who basically wrote Obamcare when it fell out of the sky one day. Look at all of his advisors that stem from these two organizations alone. When Obama shut down offshore drilling he gave 2 billion dollars to Petrobras, who Soros owned a huge interest in, TO DRILL IN THE SAME WATER.

Not even going to bother doing a full research for someone completely uninterested though. You can start there if you really give a crap.


And although African American women might all look the same to you, that is not Michelle in the picture, that is Valerie Jarrett, slumlord from Chicago and the woman that created Barack Obama.

Because I'm too young to be elected.

You have to be 35 to be president.

You're kidding, right? We can argue on Cheney, but Rove's hand in the Bush administration is hardly open to debate when Bush himself acknowledges it.

The same legislation that was largely drafted by Republican politicians? Who have spent a couple years vehemently denying it so they can protest and try to dismantle it? You're not convincing me with that claim.

Nor are you convincing me with the others. Rich guy who contributes a lot to liberal and progressive causes and, indeed, campaigned heavily against Bush in 2004 and a slimy *** with a long history of financial corruption and double-dealing: there is no doubt of this. That he controls policy decisions by way of Barack Obama is what needs to be shown.

Also, my fault entirely regarding Jarrett. I only glanced at your second picture. Know what'd help? Putting names on. I have literally no memory for faces and I'm not unique in that respect. That said, a cursory glance at Jarrett suggests she actually has had the kind of hand in shaping Barack Obama that Karl Rove had in Bush. Can you cite something she's done to control the President? It seems she's clearly got his ear, but what is her agenda?

Wrong. To be elected president.

Only have to be 30 to be vice president last I looked.

To be elected you have to be a graduate of Harvard Yale Princeton Darmouth Brown Cornell Columbia Penn. That or University of Arizona.