Just so you now.
There will be more than one and there may be a quiz.
How ironic that you use this quote to participate in the left vs. right game which helps perpetually divide the nation, allowing a privileged few to keep you and the rest of the population in place.
You are the epitome of the statement you are highlighting.
I would not be surprised at much of what either side thought of all of us. Lemmings comes to mind.
I have taken some really vicious attacks on HP and told I should quit whining and get a tougher skin.
I post a few pictures not directed at a particular individual and it's Armageddon.
What was Noam Chomsky talking about? in that qoute... I believe you are a perfect example of it, and he is a leftist.
Oh well I screwed up the title but it may be more accurate than we think.
I'd trust the guy on the left before the chick on the right any day of the week. Tea Party lunatics are fscking terrifying.
Well it's good to know you got mis-educated.
The truth is they are ideologically speaking essentially the same, religious, conservative hardliners with strong nationalist overtones,
One is Islam, social conservatism and pan arabism the other is Christianity, social and economic conservatism and the USA.
I think they are more foundationalists, not that this is actually a word.
I think the Tea Party wants to be left alone to do what they want to do without big mamma government telling them what they want to do is wrong, or not "good for them".
The Tea Party is nothing more than the right side of the Occupy movement, which a left side movement.
To fear one is to fear the other because they are both extreme measures of the real "99%" The citizens of what used to be the United States, but is now merely referred to as America.
I am very concerned that people, even here, complain about the division in the country yet continue to divide.
Just wondering... was there an actually point to this thread that we might be getting to later? Or are you just trying to start arguments?
If so don't worry about a title... Just write "I want to troll" as your next title.
So that's a no to having a point?
Okay, I can safely dismiss anything you have to say in the future. Good luck with that whole wanting to be the center of attention thing.
The woman's plan to exterminate Blacks has gone well.
I'm a member of the left.
Hint: I believe in thinking. In THINKING. Not in parroting what other people say, not in having conversations via bumper stickers, macros, or quotes. I believe in thinking for myself.
I don't think all the time about YOU, and I don't judge you.
Apparently, from the title of this thread, and from all your posts, you think about the left constantly. Unfortunately, your way of communicating is to pepper other people with stereotypes that you feel perfectly justified in plastering on them, rather than...
...finding out what they actually think.
Sorry, we do NOT believe you. I have seen how members of the Left thinks.
It is unpatriotic. As a matter of fact, it is disgusting.
It's another one of those......Hey you should shut up no matter what we say or stand back and let others say about you....deals.
What do you, as a member of the "left" think?
This is a valid question from a member of the "right" who also likes to think. I think about how I'm going to pay my house note when the economy is in the tank. I think about why it is fair that people who refuse to work get to have some of my weak paycheck. I think about how it seems to be right to tell me what to eat, what to do, what to buy, and where to park my car. I think about how much division there is even though this is supposed to be a "tolerant" country. I think that I'm tired of all news outlets---left, right, center (is there center news?). I think about passing my classes and maintaining my 4.0, and I think about how I'm going to make it to tomorrow.
I think that I'd like to know what the "Left" thinks about to see what we may have in common and what may need discussion to find either common ground or understanding.
What does the left think of me?
They think that I am a ruthless, cold hearted person. They think that I am a rich u no what. (Even though I'm not.) They think that I am selfish and mean and ultimately, very tragically, and officially uncool. They think I over react. That I am chicken little.
and the left thinks that I believe in too many restrictions on t h e i r liberty.
Such as their liberty to have sex willy nilly and their liberty to vacuum out developing human embryos from wombs. Their Liberty to tax whoever THEY declare deserves to be taxed for what ever reason THEY deem to be relevant.
...Their Liberty to limit our access to the natural elements and sources of energy needed for a civilized, industrial, non third world country...
Well, you asked.
From one Kathryn to another:
I appreciate your comments.
I think that if the Left thinks that the Right puts restrictions on people, that they may want to re-check their facts.
What I would be asking is who owns you? The left and right argument is played. Who really runs the country and what do they do to profit from such crazy distractions?
And what does the Right think of you?
"Shut up and give me your money, asshole."
The right is supposed to be the rich folks. They don't need "your money".
The Occupiers were not right, they are left... and what do they scream and hold signs saying??? That the rich 1% must give them, the occupiers, their hard-earned money because they don't want to go out and earn their own.
What a twisted idea it is to think that rich folks want the poor folks' money when the poor folks get the benefits: free entitlements they did not pay for at the expense of the rich folks who paid into the system..... and the not-so-rich folks... who suffer because of the open hands, and the open mouths of those who won't shut their hands over a shovel, or their mouths, in general.
"The right is supposed to be the rich folks. They don't need "your money"."
You're right, they don't need it. But they still want it. Every last penny of it.
I wonder, do any of the left have close friends from the right, and vice versa? Because i have an aunt I love very much, she is very outspoken and I disagree with her a lot. She is very conservative. But she's my favorite aunt, so I just listen to her but say nothing. And I see how much love she has, how kind she is and how she is so giving in every little thing. And I have friends on the left but we usually don't talk politics anyway, we talk of what we're gonna do, go malling, etc.
The divide is so strong it seems, in America but I wonder if it is to the point that left and right don't make friends and don't mix? Just curious because I have lived in the Philippines so long and am quite out of touch about stuff like this in the USA.
I have several close friends who are conservative. It takes mutual respect.
I agree. My best friend is a liberal Dem, and my husband is a conservative R. I'm sort of in the middle. We discuss politics all the time, yet we never get angry because we respect each other's opinions. Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly think most Americans want what's best for the county - they just have different ideas about the paths to take. I've found that if you sit down and have a calm, reasonable discussion with someone from the "other side," you'll often find that you share some common ground. More of that is needed, IMO. We're much too divided.
I'm married to a conservative republican. I'm a liberal.
We get along just fine... possibly because both of us have better things to do than fight about politics.
The nation is divided because a very few of us don't want to do anything but argue. Unfortunately we've either elected these people or gave them their own talk show. Now lots of other people mimic the words of their new "Gods" and fight with the followers of other new "Gods".
It gives them something to do other than... you know... having a life.
I myself enjoy my little fights online- when I am hormonal and/or pissed about something total unrelated. I lived on here for the last three months of my pregnancy when I was bedbound/isolated/horribly emotional/ and off of my depression meds. I think that particular mental state is common among those who argue politics and religion on online venues.
I am a liberal married to a conservative Republican. We never fight about politics. We've been together for 6 years now.
My previous long-term relationship was also with a conservative Republican. We were together from the years 2000 to 2006. We did argue about politics and, from my perspective, it was not me who was the problem. I'm sure he had a different view, but honestly, he would have been wrong. I swear, after 9/11, he went a little nuts. Prior to that, we discussed political and social issues without a problem. After 9/11, he became angry and upset if I didn't agree with our President and I didn't agree a LOT, especially about the invasion of Iraq, torture policies, and the loss of our civil liberties. He called me a traitor; he tried to tell how to vote; one day, he even became apoplectic about a comical, anti-Bush screensaver my teenager had put on his computer and "ordered" me to take it off. It was ridiculous!
I think one of the reasons I sometimes argue with conservatives on these forums is I see that mindset represented here and I cannot resist responding to it. Plus, I just like to argue.
Have your views changed or are you just ignoring the fact Obama is now even worse than Bush on those issues?
No, I have not changed.
Let me ask you: why do you assume that I ignore that Obama is worse on those issues? That is, of course, assuming that he is "worse."
Well because you seem more concerned about complaining about Republicans than you are about the horrific crimes, and human rights abuses of the Obama administration. Tell me how important that Rubio/water incident is in comparison to the drones, NDAA, kill lists, illegal wars etc. I'm asking for perspective.
What you see is one tiny piece of me here on these forums. That is what we all see. It is important not to draw conclusions based upon that, although I know I am also guilty of doing so. I replied to a thread started by someone else; that does not mean that I view that issue as more important than other issues that are not currently being discussed here. It also does not mean that I spend even one iota of my time outside of these forums worrying about it.
If you knew what I do in my private life, you would not even be asking the question. I deplore some of the actions of this administration and recognize that they are not much different from those of previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat.
LOL! Well admitting you have a problem is the first step.
I like to argue too... and do here quite often. Generally I actually like the person I am arguing with. I tend to ignore those I don't like... Therefore I don't really think of them as brainless idiots with nothing valid to say.
Some people have to feel that way about their "opponent" to validate the fact that they are being stereotypical and ignorant. It's called dehumanization. Which is really the root of problem if you think about it.
Well you are in for a culture shock if you decide to come here. The Left believes in the welfare state and keeping people there. They also believe in little or no border security. They make excuses for people who enter the United States illegally.
The Left also believes strongly in abortion and attacking the Christian Church.
some on the left believe in abortion and attacking the Christian Church - just as some on the right do.
I always seem to get comments off everything I post.
John, the Left believes MORE in the welfare state supported by Big Government. That is NO BULL. The Right does not believe in such things. John, what side of the spectrum attacks the school prayers and force schools/churches to teach sexual reproduction to Middle Schoolers?
Want a hint? Also, what side fought hard for pornography saying that porn fell under Free Speech. Then you wonder why American television and movies are so sexually graphic?
The welfare state is very much a tool of the right - have you never heard of "if you don't work, you don't eat" and "from each according to ability, to each according to need"?
Are you sure it is only the left wing that attacks school prayers and not people of none Christian religions?
Your desire to keep the mechanics of reproduction secret is not very effective, and not very humane.
A hint for you, Pornographers are some of the most right wing capitalists you could never wish to meet.
BTW, why do you keep all the sexually graphic movies for yourselves Share them around I say.
Dang, I posted a little too fast on the last post.
That one quote is a Communist statement. Not the right.
From each to each?
He will counter with communism is a right wing ideology.
No, communism isn't a right wing ideology. Communism as practised in the USSR was capitalist in its aspirations though.
Communism was practiced in the old USSR. It is no longer the USSR anymore. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics cease to exist after 1991.
Capitalism and Communism are two different sort of systems.
I'm confused! Are you claiming that communism is a right wing ideology?
NO, I am claiming that statement is Communist. And it is.
And I'm not disagreeing with you, so what exactly is your point?
Communism is at an end anyway. Just like the King and Queen nonsense in a few countries.
UK still lives in Medieval Age with King/Queen nonsense.
I have yet to meet any pornographers on the Right. When Right Wing Catholics and Evangelicals were protesting against open pornography, were the porn capitalists rooting those people on?
I do not have sexually graphic movies either. I was just speaking on the subject. You seem to be feeling a little guilty John.
I do not desire the mechanics of anything secret. It is just some people have dirty minds. Look at how things are now. I guess it is fine with you.
What I meant by the welfare state is that more people on the Left tend to agree with it more and the sponsoring of such a social system. Every Right Wing person I have ever met was not or never was on welfare. People abuse that sort of safety net. You see it in the inner city all the time.
Funny, one of the owners of one of the most right wing newspapers in the UK was a pornographer!
I don't feel guilty about my sexuality and I'm not embarrassed by depictions of it, as long as it'snot exploitative.
And as for no right wing person ever being on welfare - I'm speechless with laughter. You must have a very small circle of friends.
I live in the U.S. not the UK. Maybe pornographers do things differently over in the UK versus the U.S.
The right wing persons that I know. That is what I said. I never said no right wing persons in general.
I had a friend who was very right wing in his ideology who once applied for food stamps after four fingers were cut off in an accident. He was unable to work for quite a while and qualified for exactly 12 dollars a month in assistance.
He was told that because he was single and had no children that it was all he could get. He was also told that it would have been better if he had just not worked prior to this incident then he could have received more help.
What those social services look for are:
1.single mother with father less babies.
The more fatherless the babies, the better. The more single the women, the better. Great plan to make people dependent on the government.
There are no plantations. A Republican freed the slaves John.
If you don't work, you should find a way to eat without taking food from the mouths of those who managed to work for what they got.
Chicken in every pot? democrat. Social Security? Democrat. Medicare/Medicaid? Democrat. Every social program? Democrat.
now that they are here, and people have been made dependent on them the Republicans are trying to find ways that next generations have choices that do not keep them suckling on the teat of big government through private investments for their own medical and their own retirement.
That is Republican (conservatives, anyway) ideology. Hand-up, not hand-out...
Well, this Republican, anyway.
Now tell that to all the shareholders, bankers, CEOs and everybody else who thinks that the world owes them even more than they have now.
I don't give them anything... Shareholders invested in those companies... it is actually an earned income--sort of.
CEO's did not start out being CEO's, they worked up to that point... they believe that capitalism is their answer to success.
No one who is a CEO or shareholder, or banker, is trying to keep others from making money, either. They WANT others to make money because that is how they can make more.
I'm totally not an economist, but it seems to my regular "joe" mind that if you want to make money, others must also be making it.
That is the mentality that will make taxes work in this country. If fewer people work, then they have to take more from those who do work. If more people work, then everyone prospers because no one group has to carry the burden that no other group is carrying.
You forgot a few other inventions of the Left:
- minimum wage
- safe work conditions
- the five-day work week
- paid overtime
What side fought for money to be representative in and of its own. The right and Congress and its lobbyists continue to steal your property and freedom because of it.
Choose a side is the conversation basics nowadays. A big argument and demonize your opponent.
We are in such a heap of trouble and all we can do is point fingers and blame.
Actually, the Left are the ones doing all the stealing. They also stomp on the U.S. Constitution all the time like their representative in the oval office.
There is nothing like a little population control either. Just ask Obama. All we need now is to force the churches to pay for abortions.
What ever happen to Separation of Church and State?
You keep pointing to one side of the paradigm thinking fixing them is the answer to the solution. The plutocracy runs this country and they cull their candidates from both sides. You just don't get it.
If you want to discount the republican gerrymandering the vote as not theft and the institution of the Patriot act by Bush and now Obama as not stomping on your rights, you cannot see the forrest for the trees.
Once again you wish to take away someones right to have control of their own body and claim Obama is the culprit. What a waste of time.
And you should read up on the conditions required for religious healthcare systems and abortion. Do you want to start the death panel rumors again?
You do know we still don't have a balanced budget and are still at war and the sequestration is looming again. Maybe you could come up with some solutions instead of just blaming somebody for the whole mess.
Another hubber recently stated some beautiful truths...he said conservatives and liberals are your neighbors, they will let you borrow a cup of sugar, a rake or lawn mower, give you a ride if your car breaks down, let you borrow their phone, etc...you go to church together, have children who play together...etc etc...the division is thanks to the propaganda machine of this country and those who love to share and perpetuate the propaganda, people love the dirty laundry, gossip, and lies; which is why our television programming now consists of the bad girls club and the Kardashians,lol
Actually, BFF's post is insight into BFF's thinking, and nothing more. It is simply a reflection of her own feelings of persecution.
Those of you who actually think of others and know the differene are posting here and I have seen you before and it's not about you.
There's others ain't posting but when they do they will likely reply in kind and those are the ones who ain't thinking. Just looking for who's who.
I apologize to the easily offended.
It is possible that the right and the left have a common enemy; we just haven't pinpointed it yet!
Yes it is . I try to point that out daily but usually what happens if someone progressive jumps and and starts personal attacks becasue mine is not a message they want out there..especially not right now.
Those who responded who were mad at me are actually people who are thinking...not just going uh-hu uh-hu to the aims of what's going on.
Yes...The corrupt elite, the powers that be, etc. But who are they?
Republicans if you ask a Democrat and Democrats if you ask a Republican
Or rich old white men and corporations if you are a leftist and socialist politicians and labor unions if you are of the right wing persuasion.
Any government if you are Libertarian. Illuminati/Rothschilds/Rockefellers if you are a loon. The devil if you are Christian. Christians if you're Muslim.
I kid, I kid.
Left, right, up, down. Doesn't matter. They both claim they did the good deeds and the other party was responsible for the bad deeds. Screw them both.
My mom used to tell me when I was young that I wouldn't be at all concerned about how little people thought of me if I understood how little people thought of me. Since then, I'm not too concerned at all about what others think of me - most of them don't have time to.
No surprise here. The reasoning for many years behind this statement is that America will never do a thing about their thirst for oil until a crisis is in their face. The statement is just a hurry up on the inevitable.
Yet, Democrats say they are helping " the people." Out of one corner of the mouth of the lying Democrat comes " All the Republicans care about is tax cuts for the rich." Out of the other corner of the lying mouth of the Democrat comes " Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe."
Yet Europe is suppose to be a great example of civilization that the U.S. is suppose to follow.
That made me laugh and it is VERY true.
Socialists, Communists, Democrats are all TRASH equally. No cows needed.
Shame it is all wrong though.
Is it good living in a fairy tale world?
Communism according to Karl Marx was a fairy tale.
It's all right on the mark. Every word of it.
Wow! You are a hatefilled one, aren't you? Maybe I should point out to you that democrats do not like being referred to as nazis...trash, etc. You should probably learn some manners.
Democrats and NAZIs have MUCH in common.
1.Taking arms from the people. Actually started in 1871.
2.Universal healthcare. Actually started in 1871
3.Animal rights. Hitler was a big lover of animals, nature and was a vegetarian.
4.Hate of Jews. Democrats seem to hate Jews more than Muslims. They do everything in their power to support and make excuses for Islam while putting down Israel.
How did they all get the two cows in the first place?
The Republican one is wrong. It should read: "The Republican has two cows. He then buys exclusive rights to sell milk in that county, and charges his neighbors 4x the usual price of milk from their own cows, driving the entire neighborhood into abject poverty while he laughs it up in his 5-bathroom mansion."
Actually not quite right - the Republican passes laws that prevent anybody else from owning cows, then ratchets up the price of milk.
That made no sense. Democrats are the ones who drive people into poverty, not Republicans who believe in teaching the right fundamentals of staying away or out of poverty.
...For a better America
1. Ban Porn
2. Ban Abortion
3. School in America should be 12 months.
4. Prayers should be placed back into schools.
5. Polite society should be encouraged.
6. Death penalty for rape and murder should be imposed.
7. Graffiti vandalism should be a crime.
8. U.S. citizens should join the Armed Forces for at least 2 years.
9. Immigration should not be allowed for 10 years minimum.
10. Illegal immigrants should be arrested and put to death immediately. (after all, they were dying to get into America any way)
First you tried banning alcohol - look where that got you.
Then you banned drugs, that got you even deeper in the doo dah!
Need I go on?
John, hell may have frozen over, I actually agree with you.
Illegal drug trafficking is a crime in the United States. Cocaine leads to the deaths of many people and should be banned.
Prohibition did not work because you had hypocrites in law enforcement. Of course you had a black market and the MAFIA too.
I really think banning alcohol was stupid. Those who want things will find ways to get them:
criminals with guns
druggies with meth, crack, marijuana, etc...
sexual deviants will find women
lonely men will find prostitutes
women will find "sugar daddies"
Kids get booze/ >21 ID's/free term papers
You cannot stop Americans from seeking out that which they want... They will get it regardless.
Trying to make things criminal does not get rid of the thing. It just puts more people behind bars to become victims of the system, or burdens on society.
Before someone mis-understands me...
I do not think criminals should have guns...
I do not think sexual deviants should rape women or children.
I do think that there is not enough common sense to go around in those who make the laws.
And there is even less common sense amongst those who the laws apply to.
I actually have nothing against gun ownership in principle. What I do object to is those who see guns as penis extensions and who want to ----- the world with their guns.
All this hideous posturing and showing off - mines bigger than yours - that is what is wrong, not gun ownership itself.
Sounds like a third world country, no thank you, I believe in the FREEDOM of America, I do not need a government Daddy.
Can I get a rousing Sieg Heil from somebody else?
Now you're beginning to see the danger of extreme right wingers.
Joke's on you; fascism is a methodology of the extreme Right.
Joke's on you. The left are the ones trying to employ his methods right now.
No they are not, no one is banning weapons in the USA.
Regan was the one who banned automatic weapons in the USA.
And yet...Missouri has a bill before it to confiscate any semi-automatic rifle with a thumbhole stock. Not ban, mind you, confiscate
Because, you know, that thumbhole stock instantly turns a kindly hunter into a ravenous killer. Yeah, right!
Actually, the proposed law would ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grip or thumbhole stock.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bi … B0545I.HTM
I'm no expert in state gun control laws, but I think this is a commonly used definition.
I guess Washington state tried to sneak past a bill that would ban "assault" rifles and require anyone grandfathered in with one to allow access to their home at least annually to show a sheriff how their weapon and ammo is stored. I understand it was stopped.
Not really. Fascism has more to do with the Left than Right. The media has blurred that one as well.
Lol... another person who doesn't have a clue about fascism... Rely more on the history books than the media...
Hey Bare, what happen was the Socialists invaded the Democrat Party. We both know that Socialists love the welfare system and are anti family and anti war.
Yeah, see this was pre-60's freak out.
Compare him to his brother who was called the Liberal Lion.
You know....the one that killed a woman and got away with it and became a hero.
They came in after Johnson.....all the 60's folks became professors and lawyers and then politicians and now they are who is spreading the road apples in our society.
Neil Young is happy. His albums are still selling.
That's not what he is talking about there and the fact you can't see that speaks volumes about the level of indoctrination you are under.
But what about all the shareholders who want to take other peoples money?
That's not what he is talking about.
You do have the capacity to follow the conversation don't you?
I'm asking why he is critical of some people who live off other peoples money but uncritical of others who do exactly the same thing.
Or perhaps I'm asking you that question!
You should revisit the thread about how the rich should be paying for the poor, you still do not get it.
What exactly don't I get?
As far as I can see it is the poor paying for the rich, could that be why they are poor?
The opposite has been explained to you many many times. Forget it.
I'm sorry, unlike you, I refuse to be brainwashed into believing that wrong is right.
Wasn't it Orwell who said there was no difference between the upper classes and beggars?
I haven't been brainwashed, I know that the money I earn is mine not yours!
But you are quite happy to believe that the money I have earned is yours though!
If you want to keep "your" money then make it without the protection, safety and advantages that living in a democratic nation conveys, while you reap those benefits and complain about paying for them you will be nothing more than a hypocrite.
Somalia has no government, no taxes! I suggest a move, I wonder how long it will take you to realize why it's the poorest nation on earth.
The men and women who die to protect your borders, the police and firefighters who will come to your aid, the law and the legal system that protects your rights, the stability of your area, the education you probably received etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
As I said, for the difference look at Somalia.
Not forgetting the welfare that helps to prevent the victims of the capitalist system from rising up and robbing you blind.
I was one of those protecting the borders so I am owed lifetime protection. I am a licensed peace officer so same protection applies. I attended private schools so I owe nothing to the terrible government education system.
All the more reason to realize, you actually made your living from those taxes you keep claiming are "your" money hypocrisy times 2.
You were sent to private school your entire schooling? That explains a lot.
As a veteran you receive certain benefits already, still coming from that tax money that you are whinging over.
Sorry, I performed for my wages which were paltry considering what I had to do. I am owed because I gave of my very valuable time.
You signed up for those wages no? As I said, as a veteran you receive several benefits. I personally think that veterans should receive more support than they do but that is irrelevant to the point originally being discussed. All of these things are only possible because everyone pays their taxes and reaps the benefits, some continue to do so but also have the nerve to complain about it. Those people are hypocrites.
Sorry, wrong again. I have paid out more than I have ever received, so reaping benefits just doesn't apply.
No you have not, there is no quantity of money large enough to cover what has been given to you by this system, the average life expectancy in Somalia is about thirty, in all probability without this system you would be dead or would never have existed at all.
I do, gladly, I pay my taxes and as of this year a little more too because I recognize the great value of this system that allows us to have a professional police force (for example) by working together as a community for our mutual benefit, it is a beautiful thing.
It's a comic tragedy that you do not while reaping those benefits.
Me thinks he's been imbibing of the "cup that clears today of past regrets and future fears".
Sorry, I was going, but I just wondered how exactly you've managed to pay out more than you've earned!
But so do many others work for paltry wages, the only difference is that they earn your scorn for doing so!
I think that is game, set and match Josak, nice one.
So you never interact with anybody who has received state education then!
So you are actually being paid with those taxes... hypocrisy times three. All those people who willingly pay their taxes feed you and you still complain about doing the same.
I already do, my taxes along with the rest of our nations are paying for the internet you are using to complain about paying taxes. It's hilarious really.
It is hilarious to think you pay for anything. Your tax dollars? What tax dollars? You don't pay taxes you benefit from my tax dollars.
You owe me now pay me!
I guarantee that I earn more than any cop so yeah my tax dollars, irrespective of that, everyone's tax dollars, pay your wages. Your job only exists because of the system you are criticizing.
You earn more than any cop, would you care to tell me what you earn? Then we can best determine if you earn more than any cop! You owe me now pay me!
It's really not polite to say and as previously stated I DO already pay you, myself and millions like me who pay our taxes.
and now it's just pathetic.
A perfect example of your kind, when devoid of an argument (as ever they are) it becomes baseless accusation, the point is beyond proven so I am done. Have a good one.
I think in the face of such blatant hypocrisy I'll bid you good night Josak.
He'll never get over his entitlement mentality but try to hide it by accusing others of being the same.
All the more reason for avoiding the extreme right.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
So looking at the America political landscape of today who has the absolute power?
One party can advance their legislation and the other can't.
Care to try again?
Do you know what absolute power means? Look it up.
While Republican control Congress and most of the State governments neither side has absolute power. (Which is why the system was designed this way in the constitution).
Not to mention that the constitution itself restricts the power of government so even if one side owned all seats they would still not have absolute power.
One party still has everything bottled up so only their ideas get voted on. Call that what you will.
There are plenty of names for that I prefer elected officials myself but it certainly ain't absolute power.
Well maybe not....
tyranny comes to mind...
Oh i forgot.
Those guys are Democrats.
You don't believe it's possible for them to behave in any of these manners we have been discussing.
Of course it is, there have been plenty of leftist tyrannies, Stalinism leaps to mind, but the current government does not meet the defintion, it's really quite simple.
Who is trying to establish gun controls RIGHT NOW?
It ain't the far right.
I saw a movie where only the police had guns. It was called EVERY JAPANESE EVERYTHING EVER.
And hey, wouldn'cha know it, Japan's doing a hell of a lot better economically than we are right now!
Good to see you think of the poor as nothing more than wild animals.
Good to see you don't comprehend we treat them worse than animals.
No we don't, we understand they are intlleigent eneough to be treated differently from the way animals are.
You do not get it, Josak.
What a surprise.
You ever thought that that may be because you don't express yourself clearly?
She has made it perfectly clear with her very clever photographic illustrations. The bear sitting at the picnic table is the bear who is waiting for his hand out. Read the words carefully... actually, I will go ahead and keyboard them here for you.
"Please Do Not Feed the Animals
because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves."
Apparently, we are kinder to animals than to people, in this day and age.
PS It isn't rocket science. It is social science.
On the contrary, Josak said quite clearly that it was good that the poor were viewed as no more than animals.
That was quite clear and comprehensible unlike . . .
I've got your number, John. Don't even bother with me. I've known ever since the response ages ago (Elsewhere) about not using condoms. LOL!
You are calling the poor, "animals." This is what whoisit read from your comment.
You are loosing it, John...be careful...
Can you ask me that again, but in English this time please.
I responded to that precisely, yes we don't feed animals because dependency is an issue, we treat people differently because they are more intelligent and responsible, animals are not capable of understanding where such food comes from or the consequences of taking it, people are.
It's biology not rocket science.
Not to mention that we have all kinds of reserves and animal welfare centers where we do feed animals in need.
The more people who become dependent upon government assistance (through food stamps and welfare), the more people there are for the government to continue feeding... somehow! Consider that some people do have a propensity to take the easiest or most comfortable path. As they get used to welfare they come to expect it and it becomes a lifestyle. Succeeding generations also become dependent on it.
The bottom line concern here is the proper use of TAXES and keeping them low.
BTW Humans are more "intelligent" in ways you, Josak, would ever expect! They are very intelligent all right: in conniving and receiving it without working for it. And they teach their children how to work to system. Did you not see the movie "Precious?" (Her mother thought she should not even bother to go to school.) Also, I know plenty of people who have come to this country and say amongst themselves, "If you do not work the system and learn HOW to work the system, you are STUPID!"
And how much of your taxes are spent on looking after the disadvantaged compared with the amount of tax spent on killing, sorry, showing the light to foreigners?
On the contrary both collapse without the other, without both working together for example there can be no law and no justice system, surely even you see the value of those things.
Some of the forum posters will never be convinced of the truth. I really think they are response addicts. They know what will bring about a response... going against common sense. Sense which is so common that insisting on the opposite will bring about a response every time its tried.
As one you are one who'll never be convinced of the truth you'd better tell me.
You know the thing about common sense is that it is not at all common and rarely possessed by those to claim to have it in abundance.
I'm reminded of a disgruntled scratch card loser who declared "Of course -1 is lower than -6, it's common sense!"
No, that person did not have an adequate understanding of the number line. I believe this example to be an inadequate demonstration of a lack of common sense.
Common sense is that which IS common... (whether they understand, comprehend, or know it,)
to ALL people.
Such as this example:
People, like animals, may become dependent on a ready and easy source of food supply (or income) and can become complaisant, not willing to find other means of obtaining it.
Everyone (who is familiar with human nature) knows this statement to be true - of human nature in general. (Except Mr. Josak who apparently does not have a proper understanding of human nature. He, instead has an idealistic understanding of human nature. He may even think that all men are angels! But, now I am digressing from the topic of common sense. So sorry.)
You miss my point entirely, she thought it was common sense, as do many who claim that their (dis)beliefs are common sense.
So you know it is true that every person will become dependant on hand outs given the chance!
Like I said, common sense doesn't have much to do with sense.
So, you, like Josak, think that all men are closer to being angels, than not?
(Oh, what am I doing...)
Well if you admit that you would easily rely on others for a subsistence level of life then who am I to argue with you?
This is right John. Who are you to argue with me?
And angels do not need to eat!
I see you are avoiding answering
"And how much of your taxes are spent on looking after the disadvantaged compared with the amount of tax spent on killing, sorry, showing the light to foreigners?"
Is Your question,
How much of "my" taxes are spent on killing foreigners?
Do you mean me, personally?
tic toc... crickets... get back here and answer... ho humm... waiting... waiting... Yes I have become a junkie.
I know how it is, John...
Own brain kicking in...
Okay, lets say it is the government who is killing foreigners with my tax dollars.
'Okay. Yes it would be better to feed the poor, here in this country, instead.
I actually agree with your implications!
Okay Ill be moving on. Have a good day.
And Thank You!
Sorry, I said you were just a response addict.
(I am actually really interested in peoples ways of thinking and their (true) opinions.
Sometimes you seem to be on the verge of making sense. Sometimes, you don't. I would hate to think you are just yanking our chains.)
Either you or your country as a whole. As a percentage it won't differ that much or at all.
I do, most people are just doing their best, the statistics back that up, 91% of government entitlements go to, working households, elderly and disabled people. That means just 9% of the people receiving government aid are not in a working household, about a third of those are single parents and how many of them are just genuinely looking for work? my guess is the majority which means that factually speaking we are looking at a miniscule portion of people "working the system".
So low in fact that the total amount of money spent on non working households including disabled and elderly people comes to just 0.16% of our annual GDP a truly insignificant figure.
How about this idea: The government needs to create a special branch called the Welfare Branch. This Branch or Agency is responsible for operating a government corporation called We Bring Relief, Inc. or something. It would be for the purpose of using all profits (after paying its employees, operation expenses, etc.) to the disadvantaged.
(Of course there would have to be a check of some sort in place so that the government does not use the funds for other purposes. There could be auditors, and security agents to make sure of this.)
Then the people would not have to be taxed and the money they are are being taxed could go to the appropriate places.
Appropriate places like countries with governments you don't approve of?
okay...you mean wars, etc.
I agree. totally.
Thank You, once again.
It all sucks. I want Peace too!
Do you think there would be more peace in the world if the politicians and all were not so greedy? and opinionated, and pig-headed in general?
Of course. How can we change them or the situation.
Well start by targeting the real villains rather than the government and media presented scapegoats.
Now I thought you thought they were who was supposed to be straightening all the evil out!!!
Who's gonna get it all right then?
What on earth gave you that idea?
No, the government is too much in thrall to big business to do anything for those it is supposed to represent.
So why do you support all these things put forth by our present regime?
Being as you think it's the problem?
a little Jabberwocky, eh?
Let me put it another way.
You constantly question those of us who live here who view them as Socialist.
No John I don't want to hear that I don't know what it means because I do.
I question the view that you have a socialist government because quite clearly you don't.
They may have one or two liberal tendencies but that does not make them socialist by a long way.
They are trying to take it there.
How is our government and the media the problem?
I thought the current occupant was the universal solution??
Government and the media are the problem because they are in bed with the corporations who really control the USA.
The president is mainly a figurehead, the actual government changes very little when the president changes. Still all the same corporations wield the power behind the scenes.
But I thought this one was supposed to be different????
Wrong thought then!
Can you imagine how long Obama would survive if he really did try to take the USA along the road to socialism? He'd be dead within minutes of even thinking it.
You don't live here John.
It's not like you think it is.
Perhaps the fact that I don't actually live there gives me a deeper insight in to what really goes on there.
We have a much more open and international news media than you do.
I was amazed to see that your news channels position international news stories in the position our media reserves for "cat stuck up tree stories".
Depends on the story.
Why do you think the President wouldn't make it?
No, it doesn't depend on the story at all, you are starved of international news.
Why wouldn't the president make it! Ask yourself how those CEOs earning millions a year would react if Obama was to say "give it all to the people who earn the money"!
What international news is it that I need that you think will be of benefit?
Why will it be of benefit?
How much US news do you think international communities are starved of?
Personally John I think most of the world gets a very slanted view of the US.
I think some of the international rhetoric bears me out.
It would benefit you because you would actually see how US foreign policy corrupts the world and rather than being the great upholder of democracy and justice actually suppresses it.
I think international communities are not starved of much US news at all.
Have you considered that rather than international news being slanted, domestic news is instead.
What international rhetoric are you referring to?
Why are facts considered to be rhetoric in your isolated world?
How do I know if you don't tell me what you are talking about?
Well let's see John..
Iran calls us the great Satan.
North Korea just promised to destroy us....
Are you just completely out of touch or is your need to try and get someone to fall into some sort of word trap just your thing?
Well there are some, with some justification, that think the USA is the axis of evil!
And as for the claim that North Korea has promised to destroy you, er were did you get that one from? It wouldn't be from your xenophobic media would it? Think about it, why would NK really want to commit suicide?
North Korea won't be committing suicide as China has their back.
You view the US as the axis of evil?
Well surely we must be destroyed then?
Wrong again, I didn't say that I viewed the USA as the axis of evil, just that some do.
You love to play games......
You didn't say it but all your general attitude towards the US speaks it in volumes.
Ah, I see, if I'm not with you I must be against you! The foundation of all US foreign policy.
China won't go to war over North Korea if North Kore is the agressor, they have made this very clear, they have said they will defend North Korea if it is attacked first.
What international news is it that I need that you think will be of benefit?
Clue, not Fox.
So you think corporations assassinate Presidents?
Do they do that overseas also?
Corporations and individuals do not start wars. Modern war is a purely governmental phenomenon.
How about the One World Government people who are supposedly pulling the strings of our current administration. Could he mean them?
Wildly untrue, look at United Fruit and Central America some time.
Study a bit of history before saying such things.
So, which corporations and individuals are starting wars. Please tell us!
How about George Soros who was given billions to start up his own oil company in Brazil? (Thanks to tax payer dollars given to Soros by President O after the oil leak disaster in the gulf of Mexico. I heard President O handed the money over to him after shutting down oil production in this country.)
Should we not be sending troops over to fight Al Qaeda in Africa?
Wal-Mart and Ronald McDonald! Very nefarious subjects.
Well what about all the contracts for the "rebuilding" of Iraq that were awarded to USA companies without even having to tender for them? Do you not think that with rich pickings in mind those companies might not have had a hand in the reason for those contracts becoming available?
Barack Obama is not a right winger.
Whatever else he may be he is not a right winger.
Well he certainly isn't left wing so where does that leave the poor guy?
Internationally speaking he is a centrist. In Australia and NZ he would be considered mildly right, in South America center right.
AHAHHAAAHAHAHAAAAAAHH sooooooo many people have had their own symbols, it stuns me that you manage to get out of bed.
This is the Reagan symbol btw: https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&a … B341%3B350
Not to mention that the Swastika wasn't Hitler's symbol.
Actually Obama is a pretty good front man. I am conservative and actually felt peaceful after hearing his State of the Union Speech. Good enough for now. Maybe he will fall in love with the people and do what he can to save us from the people holding his puppet strings. Does he have a heart for the American people?
You know I have noticed you are always just a little too eager to belittle others you don't agree with.
There are different forms of society you will never get everyone to agree to. You dislike the US and it's current form and others dislike Socialism/Marxism/ ism this and ism that.
That's not going to change in these forums.
And by the way Josak......
Ronald Reagan didn't replace the American flag with his little personal/campaign symbol on his aircraft when he was running for office. He had more character than that.
Neither did Obama. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp
Are you embarrassed to be so consistently wrong? Does it ever occur to you to check if the Faux Outrage of the Week is real or fabricated?
No of course he isn't, he's a right winger after all!
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b … _plane.htm
He did it to his campaign plane. Not Air Force One.
Exactly. Conservatives are never wrong. They just make up their own set of facts.
Why do you think they created Conservapedia?
Here's what Josak linked to:
which is a common campaign symbol used in 1980.....thirty years ago and gone.
Barack Obama still uses his symbol. He has even tried to see what it looks like replacing the field of stars on the flag.
Of course i know you don't care Panther.....I didn't expect you to.
Obama's campaign plane had two flags, one on each side of the plane.
I couldn't care less whether or not Romney, Obama or anyone kept a flag on their plane. In the grand scheme of what matters in this world, flags on planes rank pretty low.
Thank you. i knew you felt that way. now I am certain.
Are you equally outraged at Mitt's horrible transgression of having a logo on the tail and flags on each side of the plane, just like President Obama?
Mitt Romney had his own logo?
That means he's just like Hitler!
Did they remove the US flag to do so?
if so then yes I am.
Proof is on you kitty kat.
And I agree.....it wasn't as much about who as what.
They actually removed a registered trade mark based on the US flag.
Why does it matter? Who the hell cares? It was their property to do with as they wish.
Obviously, you and Drhu haven't really read about what actually happened because you are content to wallow in your silly outrage.
"Given the length and breadth of modern presidential campaigns, it has become de rigueur for most major party candidates to have their own airplanes for ferrying themselves and staffers, press, security, and other personnel from stop to stop along the campaign trail. Such planes may be purchased by the candidate's campaign, or they may be leased or chartered from commercial airlines. Typically when a campaign owns its own airplane or leases a plane under a dedicated charter arrangement, the aircraft's exterior markings will be modified to identify it as a particular candidate's campaign plane, with some notable recent examples of this practice including aircraft used by presidential candidates Bob Dole (1996), George W. Bush (2000), John Kerry (2004) and John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" campaign plane (from 2008):
Although Senator Barack Obama flew on a variety of aircraft during the long 2008 presidential campaign season, from March through June 2008 he primarily used a Boeing 757-200ER aircraft chartered from (and operated by) North American Airlines as his campaign plane. During that period, the plane bore the standard color scheme and company markings of a North American Airlines aircraft:
However, once the primary campaign effectively ended and Senator Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, his campaign plane underwent a month-long refurbishment to prepare it for the general election campaign, a process that included reconfiguring the interior seating and modifying the exterior markings to identify and publicize the aircraft as Barack Obama's official campaign plane. The latter activity included replacing the North American Airline color scheme and markings with the Obama campaign slogan ("Change We Can Believe In"), the BARACKOBAMA.COM domain name, and Obama's sunrise/flag "O" campaign logo"
Who exactly are you talking to? You reply to my post and address someone else.
Typo: it should have said you and drhu. I just fixed it.
First of all I have not said anything about planes other than ask if they owned them. Secondly I couldn't care less what Obama did to his plane.
Well, you did agree ("Yes they are!") that McCain and Romney are as lacking in character as Obama, after Drhu said that having a logo instead of a flag on the tail of a plane shows lack of character.
So, okay, you didn't specifically mention planes but I think most people would read your comment to mean that you agree with Drhu. If you don't, then I guess I didn't accurately comprehend your "Yes they are" statement.
However, it doesn't really matter because this whole thread is based on manufactured outrage over a silly thing that has absolutely nothing to do with character. One could argue, though, that people who so readily latch on to such manufactured outrage are revealing something about their own character.
Just doin' my tiny little part to counter the silliness.
But, yeah, I moved from a predominantly liberal state to a heavily conservative area of a red state about two and a half years ago. Let's just say I'm shocked at the level of misinformation that gets passed around as fact, and the number of people who walk around in a perpetual state of outrage about stuff that isn't even true.
All that wasted energy, wasted intellect, and wasted time contributes to a local culture of stagnation and fear. It is sad.
Have you listened to what's coming out of the administration the last few days?
The sun came up this morning did it not?
This administration uses fear like a flag.
I guess it's a matter of perception. It appears to me that both sides are ginning up fear about the sequestration, if that is what you are referring to, and the corporate media loves that $h!t.
If that is what you got from "yes, they are" then I have no reason to be talking to you, you don't understand clearly written words.
How about this one?
Are McCain and Romney as lacking in character as Obama? They did the exact same thing. Just wondering if your standards apply to all politicians.
I know that's how you see it, but the majority of the public believes the GOP is more responsible than the Democrats or Obama.
The GOP aren't the ones screaming this BS. Heard a news report earlier with them screaming this crap and someone actually refuted some of it in the newscast. And it was ABC....not Fox.
The sky is not falling.
Of course the GOP isn't making a ruckus; they know they're viewed as the perpetrators. More people believe the GOP is responsible for this artificial crisis.
The GOP is being quiet because Mr.Obama owns this one from start to finish.
He was even given the power to decide what cuts where and could have used them ANY WHERE AT ALL and REFUSED.
Therefore he can
t sit out here and wail and cry foul all he wants. He started it and he is in it up to his neck.
Your "facts" are a bit, um, suspect. Kind of like your logo/flag on plane tails problem. And taxpayer spending on logos on plane tails.
So, you know, I'm inclined to take what you say with a grain of salt.
So you don't know how this started huh?
Just has to be the GOP because HE says so?
Remember he was the one who promised GITMO was going away and so forth.....don't you think you have to take what HE says with a grain of salt?
Here you go Panther:
Facts about how the sequestration came about and why the White House wanted Woodward to shut up about it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … _blog.html
I haven't really been keeping up with this, but WaPo's take is enlightening.
It's from Woodward and why they threatened him. It is Fact Checked by the Washington Post..a known liberal paper..the one that took Nixon down. Credibility oozes from the pages. it ain't Fox in other words no matter if Woodward has sat in a chair there from time to time.
Jack Lew.....your new Treasury Secretary came up with the sequestration.
It came from this administration.....period. it matters not who talked whom into what. That's a leadership issue if so....not an evil GOP issue.
If you want to lead you have to learn to actually be responsible and live with some blame.
Yes learn to live with some blame.
Growth cuts are what conservatives demanded and then agreed to a compromise proposed by the administration, to lessen those cuts, conservatives re fully responsible for the sequester as democrats would never have made any budget cuts without GOP pressure to do so.
Oh no you are right Josak.
Democrats never have the good sense to make any money saving measures on thier own.
Se now we agree on the first part we cna tackle that too.
The difference is Democrats (just as say Reagan did) realize that when you cut funds from public spending you actually end up with less money saved, you pinch pennies and as a result thee economy receives less stimulus which means next year there will be less taxation revenue, you are essentially stealing from your own future. It's stupid and that is why every nation that has done it has faced new recession and downturn.
Johnny who works part time minimum wage now has even less money when his benefit is cut so he goes to the store less, buys fewer groceries etc. which en mass means the grocery store needs fewer employees so they lay people off (these people now need unemployment benefits taking more money from the system) then the producers who supply the supermarkets have less demand so they leave fields without crop because there is no demand which means they make less money, the people who sell them seed and fertilizer suddenly have less business and they go under etc. etc. and come tax day all those people are giving you a lot less or even taking when before they were not.
That is why economists exist because economics is not as simple as the average person assumes.
The effect of the sequestration will be < 1% of GDP.
Let's not forget....the secretary of the Treasury started this.
Yes it's not a big cut therefore the result will be less bad than if it were bigger as the conservatives wanted, still bad though.
Wait I thought you said a second ago that the Democrats would never take any money saving measures on their own are you going back on that? Make up your mind which lie to tell then get back to me
NO....Jack Lew started it and they almost backed out. You can thank a lack of spinal column on their part.
Here let me give you this FACT CHECKED link again.....read it this time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … _blog.html
That statement also by the way was made by a reporter who is known for being liberal.
People aren't playin it anymore.
Barefootfae, if you haven't actually got anything to say, can you please stop posting cartoons? One or two is fine but a torrent of them is overkill.
They don't actually allow for any response as most of them are too small to read anyway.
This shouldn't need to be explained to you. The sequester is a response to the non stop whining from conservatives about spending, as a result a cut to spending growth was enacted, now of course conservatives can't stop whinging about A) the downsides of the cuts (ie. early jail releases to cut costs) B) that it's actually the presidents fault somehow.
You wanted cuts to spending and you got them, now we will see the results.
LOL, I have a life outside of these forums. I often disappear for weeks at a time, so when that happens don't think it's because of your awesome forum debate skills.
If you paid close attention to what occurred during the negotiations leading up to the sequester deal, you would know that Boehner and Obama were oh-so-close to a "Grand Bargain" but Cantor and Ryan talked Boehner out of it.
Republicans wanted spending cuts. After the constant hand-wringing from Republicans about federal government spending, it's downright hilarious that now that they have the spending cuts they're always whining about they don't want to take credit for them. Why wouldn't they want to take credit for decreasing federal government spending, since that's practically their entire platform?
man you should do a standup show tell everyone how liberals are doing them mind controls, funniest thing I read all day. One day you will realize how irrelevant you have become.
One day you will realize how true that cartoon is. i am an old hippy who used to think she was a liberal.
I know more than some.
Are you sure those are the pillars of the Liberal faith? Because "thought control," "denial of reality," and "hysteria" sound like what Fox News does every day, while "projection of guilt" and "name-calling" are what Bill O'Reilly is big on, along with those other three pillars.
Solution: Quit being an effing lying, racist, homphobic, racist scumbag. Racist.
This picture posting is fun...I see why fae does it.
Educate poor white men and downtrodden women. It's shameful the way the right uses the uneducated.
It's even worse how the left treats the uneducated.
What, you mean by actively fighting to get them a viable means to become educated (e.g. campaigning to raise money to get more scholarships to kids)?
That sure is unspeakably cruel.
I'm sure you will validate that comment with some spectacular "news" soon. I'll wait for the 'fox' endorsed joke of the week. lol.
Right wing indoctrination works really well though.
Between 200 000 and 600 000 in Iraq, between one and 4 Million in Vietnam, Over a million in South America, hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan see how quickly that adds up?
Stalin has been dead for over sixty years.
That shows that college students are EDUCATED IDIOTS. Also, college students think that religion has killed more people. It is funny, especially debating the atheists at the University of Michigan.
Only republicans pay taxes!
I'm sure if that was true there wouldn't be a single republican left in the US.
Liberals who are on average 7% wealthier pay for most of it. Thank you and next question.
Facts have a liberal bias
Yes when liberals fake them they have a liberal bias.
What, just like when right wing fascists do?
Nope that is actually part of research that found that conservatives give more to charity so it can hardly be accused of a liberal bias.
You were just wrong, as usual.
Yet weirdly liberals are 7% wealthier than conservatives on average.
Obviously liberals work harder or smarter.
So the poster is hilariously wrong.
It should be people who don't work or were too uneducated to make a good wage were outvoted by those who do and can.
by Billie Kelpin 12 months ago
Do left-handers tend to be liberal in politics? (i.e. Are Left-handers, left?) .I'd estimate that 7/8 ths of the left-hander I know are liberal Democrats. Seven of the last 13 left-handed Presidents, starting with FDR were Democrats. (BTW - Considering that only 10-13% of the population is...
by dutchman1951 7 years ago
What do you think. As President would , world leaders respect Her enough, would the Arab Nations treat her equal? I think of Ms Thatcher and how she worked harder to be taken seriously, how tough she had to be, and how many times the behind closed doors comments flew, and some in the papers...
by Readmikenow 2 months ago
I'm sure anyone who has seen my responses on HubPages knows I'm a conservative. I also have relatives who are liberal, gay as well as a recent revelation of a transsexual. So, how do we all get along? We discuss politics but realize family is more important than politics. At...
by arizonataylor 6 years ago
Who was the most conservative republican president in American history?
by retellect 6 years ago
What are the core values of a Conservative Republican?
by cprice75 6 years ago
I have many friends that are conservative theologically. I tend heavily to that side of the spectrum, as well. I would classify myself a conservative evangelical. However, I've found that most of my friends tend to be right-wing conservatives when it comes to politics. I am...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|