Why Are the Democrats So Evil?

by cellomould 66 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Farkel

  Crazy,

  : do a search for the SKULL AND BONES club from YALE. Tons of people were in it, included Dubya and his dad.

  I have. You watch too much TV crap. For your theory to be correct you would have to believe that Dubya and his poppa were part of a group that has as its goals, taking over this world. GHWB didn't do it, and dubya hasn't done it either. And no one will do it. The "Skull and Bones" club at Yale is just another attempt for puny humans to make the world think that they are not just puny humans.

  Get a clue.

  As soon as anyone takes these secret societies seriously, they gain power, because some people actually believed their bullshit. If no one takes them seriously, then they remain the goofy societies that they were in the first place.

  If the day comes that people will actually recognize the Watchtower Society as nothing more than purveyors of bullshit and lies and more importantly, just plain AIR, I will rejoice in the streets with all the liberated dubs.

  Farkel
• 

  larc

  Hey brother Farkel,

  It is a real shame that most people don't see the world as clearly as you and I do. The world would be a far better place if they did. What a pity.
• 

  144thousand_and_one

  Hey brother Farkel,
  It is a real shame that most people don't see the world as clearly as you and I do. The world would be a far better place if they did. What a pity.--larc

  Are your cataracts amber or green, brother larc?
• 

  cellomould

  from http://www.historychannel.com/

  DEMOCRATIC PARTY

  The Democratic party began to assume its modern form during the intense political conflict that divided Americans after the War of 1812. Over the next decade, as the party's organization developed, Democrats argued that they were combating Federalist efforts to impose an aristocratic, centralized government on the American people. The conflict between centralizers and egalitarians, Democrats declared, went back to the Hamiltonian efforts in the 1790s to erect a powerful national authority, threatening to individual liberties...

  The core of the Democratic party's support lay in southern slave plantations, farms of all sizes in every part of the nation, and immigrants in the urban centers of the eastern seaboard...

  At the same time, the unwillingness of many Democratic leaders to take a stand against slavery was increasingly seen as a prosouthern position that unfairly permitted slaveholders to prevail in more and more of the nation's territories and to dominate national policy when Democrats were in power.

  I highlight some of the pros and cons in the early history of the Democratic party. It is quite interesting that in many regards the modern Republican party resembles the historical Democratic party.

  cellmould
• 

  Reborn2002

  Forgive me for being out of town a few days, but do not worry, I will address my dear friend Farkel and his hypocritical ways.

  Farkel says:

  I notice that political differences bring out the best in people, as your obvious ad hominem proves.

  A word of advice. Do not attempt to take the high moral ground unless you are worthy of it. As if you are not guilty of ever using an ad hominem attack on another poster on this board? Does anyone remember your rather vicious and unwarranted comments directed at Prisca? For that matter, anyone who disagrees with your rather aloof personal opinions, you attempt to belittle by making a mockery of their statements or by poking fun at their comments.

  It was YOU who began this unnecessary argument.

  I initially said:

  Forgive me if I am wrong, but was there not a recession in the United States when George Bush Sr was in office.. PRIOR to Clinton ever being President?

  This is a fact.

  How do you respond to my post?

  You say:

  Forgive me if I am wrong, but was there not a recession in the United States when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in office? From 1934 to the early 1940's? PRIOR to Eisenhower ever being President?

  So first you mock my statements, and then you insult me by including:

  You obviously know little about how long it takes for economies to react as a whole to governmental policy.

  I only give you back the endless bullshit you always feed others. You are arrogant, and need to get over yourself.

  as your posts show a distinct lack of historical knowledge.

  You already made a fool out of yourself

  Don't bring an unloaded weapon into a brain fight, Reborn.

  Seems you like to attack the person's character, and not their comments. Would this not be an ad hominem attack? If you like to dish out insults, I can do that just as easily.

  So instead, I will make this simple for you.

  I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. Do not attempt to mock or belittle my opinion, and in turn, I will leave you alone as well.

  I will be frank. I do not like you. I have not liked you since I joined this board.

  So I think it best that we avoid one another so as not to clutter Simon's board with unnecessary arguments.

  Have a nice life.
• 

  teejay

  Very good points all around, Jason.

  There was indeed a recession during the Bush Administration (following on the spend, spend, spend "let's get gubment off our backs" Reagan Administration). Bush's apathy / complacency toward that recession and his focusing on issues abroad (the Gulf War) and his lack of ideas on how to get us out of the doldrums at home didn't go over well with Americans. Neither did voters respond well to his reneging on his promise to not raise taxes.

  Clinton, on the other hand, promised to zero in on the economy "like a laser beam." He did and the rest is history.

  Of course there's a good chance that it will be said that I'm clueless about how the economy works and examples from fifty years ago will be trotted out to support that assessment of me. That has nothing to do with today's recession, however... nothing to do with why the stock market falls after every speech Dubya makes. There must be a reason.
• 

  TTBoy

  LDH made a very good point - have vs. have nots.

  If you have would you want it taken away from you just because "you have"? - NO, I sure don't like it. I'm in full support for educating and helping people but there are way too many out there with their hand out.

  If you don't have, yea sure, I'd love to get free stuff than sit at home and drink, do drugs, and have illegitamate children. Personally I would rather use the help and get educated and get a decent job so I could eventually be one of the "haves". That's where the problem is, those who abuse the help.

  TT