Democrats Using Sex and Race to Hyper-Control its Voters ?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0Whatever you do follow those party lines or pay for it dearly , you WILL be shamed ?
There is no argument for this one because liberals , here especially , know I'm right .
With the right wing today, most of who are high school dropouts, barely employed and live off "liberal" donor states tax dollars, it's always looking to be "right" without any substantial evidence or proof.
So when a right wing so called conservative goes for the "shame" card, you do have to wonder how they are NOT justifiably ashamed of the moron they elected to occupy the White House.
As a woman, I grew up with that Trump face in our NJ/NY papers every week. He was either photographed with Mommy Mary Ann wearing the same hairstyle or he always had some arm candy dangling off his arm as if that would send the message he is the most desirable man on planet earth. Think again. But, that superiority act is just that..an act. When pitted against experts and true CEO professionals, Trump comes up the loser as is proven by the fact that Charles and David Koch are No. 1 and No. 2 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US and Trump is No. 200. Don't expect the right wing to believe this. La La land for them is reality.
As a woman, I find it immensely amusing that Trump considers his porn model wife to be the ideal woman and his daughter Iskanka, whom he once told a Vanity Fair interviewer: "Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your 14 year old daughter, than your wife?" His then wife was the Georgia Peach,Marla Maples, not exactly an uggo.
Women with brains are anathema to the most grossly insecure men. These are the men who loved when the Neanderthals dragged their women around by their hair inside the caves. These are also the men who as young kids cheered when Big Daddy beat Big Mommy to show his oh so masculine power.
And then? Boomer women came along in the 60s and realized that they simply would not give up another 40 years of their lives to womanizers, gamblers, boozers and druggies, not to mention take the kind of physical and mental abuse these freaks of nature get their jollies from.
Democrats are proud of their accomplishments. The right wing conservative Republicans have NOTHING to be proud of and everything to be ashamed of.
When a weasel from Janesville, WI, one of the US's top poorest cities, like Paul Ryan whose Mommy lived off SSDI when his Daddy died seeks to steal the payroll deductions taken by the government for over 4 decades, you see why the right wing has to lie.
What they want is to be able to live it fast and easy and never have to break a sweat. They can get that in prison too if they continue to shamefully break our laws.
Ever notice how it's always the right wing men who so fear being outnumbered in government by women that are the ones who do all the reputation smearing to try and make themselves look good? Take the hint. It's not working anymore.
Sexual harassment isn't about any political party. It is a about grossly insecure males who treat women like sex objects and if women want to hold a job must open their legs. Not anymore.OUCH!!!!!!
Always bothered me, when Michelle Obama was criticized for wearing a sleeveless blouse, while Trump has a wife who had no objections in her life to opening her legs in a glossy photo spread for all to see, is different?
For the conservative, morally or the call for it has always been part of their modus operandi, call it the "expedient tool" in their toolbox.
So, what are we babbling about now, Ahorseback?
So whose panty lines are you following?
Let us not believe that your conservative/ GOP/rightwinger types are so virtuous and noble and pure in thought as to not need your own dirty affiliations?
Have you seen the new tax bill? Talk about holding congressmen to party loyalty - and the country be damned. No republican can ever claim to be fiscally conservative - not with a straight face.
To Bad , we get a tax break with tax revenues to be cut , you'll have to give up an entitlement . Whats the big deal .
The democrats couldn't do it !I sometimes wonder (as I'm sure you do with me) whether you get your news off the inside of a bathroom stall wall.
Kathleen is right. Suddenly fiscal conservatives are fiscal liberals. Fiscal conservatives have been crowing about the importance of the national debt, but now that they have their hands on the purse strings, they're handing out "tax cuts" mostly to corporations and the wealthy and dramatically raising the national debt.
Further, they're claiming yet again, that trickle down economics works, when that claim is provably false. Giving tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy does not trickle down to the rest of us. In fact, it's the opposite. Put money in the hands of the middle class, and they spend it and it benefits corporations and the wealthy.
A recent study found that virtually everyone - Republicans and Democrats - when asked to balance the budget - raises taxes on the wealthy and corporations. In fact, we all agree that those doing well should pay more.
Generally, even Republican lawmakers agree that this "tax cut" is paying off their big donors. Without it, none of them would stay in office (and, of course, the Democrats pay off their own supporters in different ways).
That said, if you're a Republican and support this tax cut, don't ever complain about the federal deficit again.As long as conservatives cut entitlement spending , grants and subsidies as they are all taxes , I'll be happy . The idiocy of an ideology that supposes a "cost " involving--- tax cuts-- almost surprises me .
Explain please the increase in deficit by cutting taxes and so the spending behind them ?
Do you see why the smartest democrats probably got a C- in economics ?That's the whole point. I understand economics just fine. There are tax cuts without equal cuts in spending.
Frankly, if Republicans want to balance the budget, they can start with all the red states that get more from the federal government than they pay in. Of course, if they do that, they likely won't get those votes.Kind of like the blue states , highways funds for abortions ? EPA clean up grants for free day care , Low interest college loans where the principle say nothing about the interest rates never paid off ? Blue states where the highest property taxes in the world were invented ?
Aw, now who needs economics explained to them? You know, most blue areas are urban, so the demand for space is high and thus, property taxes are likely to be high. Supply and demand, you know.
That said, and I've never asked this before, but do you live in a very rural place?
I ask because I think, if you live in a place where you do not receive services for your tax dollars, I can understand more not being too keen on paying any taxes and resenting those who get services from tax money.I do live in a rural town , 12 -acres of land ,couple hundred thousand dollar house , $ 1,300 per year property taxes , schools , infrastructure , highway services , health clinics , municipal services , ........
My friend in rural Jersey has a $ 400,000 home , quarter acre , has all the same services and a $14,000 dollar a year tax .
What amount of "Blue " services is worth that difference exactly ? I'll take my home in NH .You can have your overpriced city graft and corruption , welfare work forces , subsidized universities ,tax free colleges ,rent free projects , All in your little piece of blue heaven.So I guess I understand your conservatism. It's true that rural areas tend to be more conservative and urban areas are more liberal. Some of that has to do with the increased infrastructure costs. Some of that has to do with the increased exposure to the many different kinds of people.
Again, economics on the tax thing. There is a higher demand for space in denser areas. There are more police, more fireman, more water works employees, more public transportation, more roads...
Presumably you understand this.
The other reason for the property taxes being high is the potential for land appreciation and home appreciation is high due to demand. It's factored into the calculation. I think my property taxes are 11k, but I'm in a low property tax state and my house is worth a lot.Let's face it the bigger the cities in the U.S. , actually the more liberal the leaderships , the more it costs you to live there . Many like to use the election map of 2016 to define the statistical proportions of our cultures problems , violent crime , poverty , homeless , drug problems , gang violence , entitlement spending , etc.
Take New York State ,......rural NY. suffers economically , while the cities suck up all the economic resources . It's all about leadership ? AND ,it costs as much for the rural town to exist as it does the city. Which costs more and why ?"Again, economics on the tax thing. There is a higher demand for space in denser areas. There are more police, more fireman, more water works employees, more public transportation, more roads..."
This is something I've never understood. Yes, there are more police...but more police per resident? Why? What is it in dense populations that requires that? But when it comes to more waterworks employees, I just don't see that...per resident. There certainly aren't more miles of underground water and sewer pipes per resident - instead the total goes way down, and savings due to scale in water treatment should lower it even more.
Nor is there more miles of roadway per person - the number is far, far less than in rural areas. Public transportation may take up as much money as building more roads and maintaining them, but why is that operating cost being subsidized by taxpayers? Why isn't it self supporting, charging what is needed to operate it?
It has always looked like denser populations should require less money, per resident, to support itself, but it doesn't. Instead, costs skyrocket, but why?While I disagree with the negative euphemism, I do agree that urban areas provide more services.
The conclusion that conservatives do not badly manage our tax dollars is wrong. They just send the money to other places.And as much as I find the constant insults annoying, I can see how, if I lived in a rural area, I might be resentful of the urban areas eating up all the tax money.
Dan, undoubtedly exploding bureaucracy is part of it.
Good point - those salaries have to be paid somehow. But I think that's only a small part - when city taxes are 10X what rural taxes are there's more to it than that.
There ARE additional goodies in a city, though. Museums, bigger and better parks, that sort of thing. Far more recreation possibilities, per person, than small towns provide and far more expensive ones. That's another part of it.Isn't it just the entrapment of taxation for all and by more administrators for more causes ? Look at party leadership for larger US cities .
Yes and no. Yes, it is spending by liberals (cities) that rural areas recognize as being unsustainable and/or just not what the people want. But my real question is where is that money going? City services - police, water/sewer, fire - all look to me like they should go down, not up, with increasing density, but it doesn't work that way. Why?
Local taxes :
I know that in rural new England 80+ % goes simply to education alone , School budgets swallow 80+ percent of local taxation , AND growth percentages of that portion equals 3- 10 % per year . Salaries , benefits and retirements for that 80 % is the bigger percentage of those yearly increases as well. 3---10 % increases is unsustainable .
I also recently read that at the state and local level in Vermont and the very similar New Hampshire , that the retirement trust funds are not being reimbursed from general fund spending at the state levels ,isn't that what happened to S.S. at the federal level ? A recipe for economic disaster . What will that do for municipal bonds in these areas ?Hey Wilderness. I think your thought on police numbers would be an interesting pursuit.
My first thoughts don't see your logic. They are of things - primarily caused by hi-density population, like; increased crime - and type of crime, increased service calls, etc. And by increased, I don't mean just a mathematical ratio, but more in the vein of "exponential effects."
I don't know that the logic of your thought, (specifically regarding police), is wrong, but it doesn't seem right at first glance. That's why I said it would be interesting to try to find out.
I think the comparisons would matter also. Such as not comparing NY city to Selbyville, DE. Or New Jersey to Montana. Maybe something like Ny city to Dover, De. or ...
Hmm... How about a joint project? You look into it to see your thought can be defended, and I will look to see if my "first thought" should have waited for a 2nd or 3rd consideration.
GAHey bud, (Wilderness), I took a shallow dive, (maybe I am still not giving my first thoughts time to mature), And I think I am right.
Regarding the police - and it is a rough and shallow regard, (that doesn't consider auxiliaries like LA's Sheriff's dept),there are ratios like; 1 officer per 250 people, (NY), 1 per 225, (Chicago), 1 per 444, (LA), etc. - mostly low to medium 3 digit ratios.
Whereas, less dense cities in more rural environs have ratios in the low 4 digits, like 1 per 2700, (Dover, De.), or 1 per 1800, (Salisbury, Md), etc.. The point being, more folks paying taxes for each officer means less cost per person - less taxes. The second point might be that the higher densities do require more officers at an exponentially affected ratio. I think. It was a shallow 30 minute dive. The question of why the denser city ratios don't follow the ratios of less dense, (more than cities with more rural environs), cities.
So, your question of "why" is the important one. I think it is a density thing more than a total numbers thing.
Regarding services, such as water; I think you were on the right track with your "economy of scale" thought, but, going in the wrong direction. I think the "scale" part of that thought regarding hi-density cities is on the side of costs, not revenue. Imagine the costs for Salisbury, Md. to lay an 8" or 10" water line through the less dense city limits, vs. the cost For NY to lay an 8 foot water line through a dense area like Manhattan. Or the costs of the volume of water needed, (and available), at one locale vs. the other.
I know, who cares. But it was an interesting 30 minutes, and a sensible thread to follow. And besides, my look was only a brief scan. A deeper evaluation, considering aspects I ignored, could still prove me wrong. ;-)
GAI agree, roughly, with your figures on police (and likely fire). The increase is exponential (or worse). But that doesn't answer "why". Why do denser populations need more cops per resident? Is it because cities are more liberal, attracting more poor, making more slums (have yet to see a real slum in a small town)? Because kids don't really have an outdoors to play in and don't work, so make gangs? Is it simply that higher densities attract criminals - better chance of theft, or a drug sale, for instance? Does excessive density drive people mad (
)?
Water lines - I hadn't considered the cost of putting in a new water line in downtown manhattan - I was thinking more of the difference in putting in another 100 yards to service a new high rise with 1,000 residents vs the cost to put in a mile or two plus several more miles through a new sub-division in a small town area to serve the same 1,000 new residents. I don't understand why at all, but for several years the road outside my subdivision was dug up every year to add miles of utilities each year. You don't see anything like that in Manhattan - the primary lines are already there and all that is needed is a short lateral to the edge of the road - but even if you did it would still take far less footage (per resident) to service a high rise than a new subdivision.
Water usage is likely higher in rural areas - more pets, larger families, gardens and lawns, etc. I think - that could be interesting to check on, and industry will of course use massive amounts, although industry should be paying its own way (if cities subsidize them through taxes or lower water bills that would be a partial answer to "Why?", but not one that gets sympathy from me). I'd guess that commercial use would match fairly closely to the number of residents either rural or urban.I think your first paragraph answers your question of "Why?"
It's not the numbers it's the density circumstances.
GA?? You kind of lost me: of course dense populations need higher taxes - we agree on that - buy why? I gave some possibilities (some tongue in cheek), and elsewhere I suggest that taxes are buying far more entertainment in cities than it does in rural areas, but are they the answer?
But even if city people are all driven made by the density (we rural people know this to be true), it likely isn't the only answer, so what is? All of the above? If so, how much of it is caused by policies and attitudes of liberal cities?I must have misunderstood your "Why?" question Wilderness. Since I think the part of your comment that I referenced answers the reality of why, then perhaps your "why" was addressing the human nature part that causes that reality?
If that is the case, then a psychology-based answer would probably amount to a treatise on our base instincts and emotional motivators - something that is well above my pay grade.
For instance, the police part of the equation. It seems to me that more dense areas require more police due to the reality of more crimes and service calls. Because of most people's resentment of being, or feeling they are being, controlled, more police create more resentment against the police. More resentment creates more hostility, more hostility creates a negative perspective in the police, and round and round.
Going back to the original point about costs - the police in the above description would be more costly than a rural cop simply because of the support needed. As in more training and equipment costs, more logistical support costs, and more bureaucratic costs - a rural PD probably doesn't have to include millions, (or tens of millions), in their budget for lawsuits and settlements.
GAYou guys are debating the costs of rural or urban municipalities according to ideology , to me at least . Smaller is cheaper because of leadership not size . The larger the entity the less control factor due to complications of management control alone .
Being a businessman and looking at large companies compared to smaller ones, the complications alone of size and management style matter greatly .Yes, that's it. Economy of scale, coupled with a smaller physical footprint (all per person, of course) should give major savings to a city vs a small town or rural area. But it doesn't, so why not? And the answer MUST be rooted in the psychology of each as the physical parameters go the other way.
The police is a good example. We know cities require more, but "why" is another question altogether, and you've given a possible answer (though it DOES sound much like "being crammed together causes them to go mad"). That city police are much better trained and equipped is another; no county sheriff is going to have extensive training in handling mentally ill people and isn't going to have all the personal equipment (cameras, stun gun, etc.) that is now normal requirements for city cops. The small town also won't have protests/riots at all, while in cities it's common, and won't have dedicated SWAT teams with para-military equipment. Some required because of worse crime, some because the people demand it.
Another is the difference in entitlements, from (nearly) free public transportation to feeding and caring for far more homeless/poor to wanting (nearly) free entertainment.
I'll throw another into the mix - my observations say that small towns very often have very poor urban roadways. The state/feds don't provide much funding, so town roads suffer, while cities tax enough to keep them in better condition.I still believe it's more size related and of effective organized management , Every large company I've ever dealt with was more disorganized according to the scale of size . Lesser efficiency , lesser communicative skills etc..... There used to be a saying especially in small business that is extremely important , " When the owner is in the house , things are productive " , in my estimation , the "owner in the smaller local or larger urbanity is that those "owners " being the tax payers , are not so visible.
Consider if you will , a motivational speaker brought in by larger companies , What do they offer ? Spirit , drive ,organization , expression , and so motivation. , all leadership or ownership skills . They offer first and foremost leadership over an expanded existence .
Police in small towns are just as they are in the cities except scaled in size. They now have most similar equipment , they are overworked , over loaded with required skills , the same equipment and demands . In fact ,rural crimes are matched nowadays to urban crime spread. Drugs , gangs , prescription addictions , illicit drugs , domestic violence , there is no effective difference town to city.
Bottom line if effectively managed , taxation costs should be cheaper per city to town existence ?I'd disagree with crime being the same city vs village. Crime rates for all the categories you mentioned - how many crimes per citizen - are much higher in cities. More murders per citizen, more drugs, more theft, etc. And that means more cops are necessary, but the question is why are there more murders per citizen in cities than in villages.
I'd also highly disagree that police have the same equipment. Certainly no small town is going to have a SWAT team on standby, or the materials to equip one. Villages don't have cops in helicopters, either. Nor are small town cops subjected to anything like the training city cops are. Fire is similar - no small town has a hook and ladder truck to reach 10 stories up - they don't have buildings over 3 stories!
These things all cost money, but it still seems the majority of extra cost is simply due to the massive increase in manpower per resident. When you have 100X the cops and 10X the population there is going to be a large increase in taxes to pay for it all.
I'll give ahorseback something fun to ponder. I live in one of the most liberal towns in the country, but even us liberals get fed up with liberalism when things go too far. Our city council is a good example. They can't run a meeting, but they're spending millions of dollars to figure out how to run a public utility (which apparently works in some places). Then they recently wanted to spend 300k or some ridiculous number, putting art in public parking garages.
For me, this is liberalism run amok.
I'd be curious, for you ahorseback (I already know Dan's answer), where is the line where conservatism runs amok?I swear to God you live in Burlington Vermont ? No seriously Vermont is 80 % liberal and follows California almost to the- T- politically . One recent cost analysis said that Obama Care would have seriously doubled Vermont's entire state budget , doubled ! Everything in Vermont drowns in liberal politics , after 1970 a huge influx of New Yorker's and New Jersyite's running from the city invaded a very small rural state and took over the place , its a mess economically and sterile politically .
Recently in Burlington , which had been trying desperately to attract AmTrack to it's gorgeous waterfront district , NOW however they are asking Amtrack to bring the shopping crowds but not park the trains in the city ! .......Ya gotta love it !
But hey , Feel the Bern !
Note ,-- Sorry , by the way Burlington Vermont ten years or so ago , bought and heavily invested in a privately owned cable TV - phone system in the city , I think they spent ten Million dollars , lost every dime ! So what do they do ? They keep investing more to "attempt to get their origional investment back".
And do you care to comment on where conservatism runs amok for you?
Things like the advocating for the death of all gay people tends to do it for me, which is why I identify as liberal - the social policies.
I'm actually more fiscally conservative and, if I were ever to run for office, would advocate for a lot less spending and a major effort to constrain bureaucracy.
Roy Moore? Heard of him? And he was supported by most Republicans in Alabama and by President Trump.
But I don't even have to go that far. Just the insistence that gay people don't deserve the same rights under the law as others is enough for me to never support Republicans.
You still haven't said if anything drives you up the wall about conservatives.
I thought you moved to California to influence all the poor, mislead liberal voters?
What on earth do you mean by this?
"The idiocy of an ideology that supposes a "cost " involving--- tax cuts-- almost surprises me .
Explain please the increase in deficit by cutting taxes and so the spending behind them ?"
It almost sounds like you don't understand that cutting taxes = less money to pay all of the gov bills = higher deficit. But excuse me, I went to college, so I'm pretty stupid about this kind of thing.You must be simple , 5- 1 +4 right ? If I cut the tax money I take out of your pocket , by say 10 % , How on earth does that cost anybody anything ?
Cut taxes ,.......... here it is !........cut spending to go along with it !
Pretty simple to me , or should you go back to college !
“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” the Death Ferret (Ryan) said while being interviewed on a radio talk show. Medicare and Medicaid “are the big drivers of the debt” Speaker Paul Ryan explained. “That’s where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”
Do you see the genius at work here? I mean, just look at them! First they pass a so-called “tax cut” that actually raises taxes on tens of millions of lower and middle class Americans while cutting taxes on millionaires and billionaires and adding trillions to the deficit. Then they use the increase in the deficit to justify cutting the two federal programs that actually work to aid the people whose taxes they just raised.
GOP= America's slow poison...- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
I mean isn't the scaled savings or loss by organized oversight then the same by either , the complication of large size or the simplicity of smaller size ? No matter the entity , police , highways ,etc... ? Having a more compacted residence , either a homeowner or a renter , the tax revenues per capita and so the costs , should be the same per person.
The higher the compacted residence although more required services , the more tax resources . The cheaper costs should be ? - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Wilderness , Been looking up stats to find out stuff , they seem all over the place , enough to confuse the whole issue. Crime varies , revenue spending varies , resources too. You know one thing that always bothers me is cost studies by cities ,states , towns . Wouldn't you think another entity already knows for instance , the cost of cleaning public drinking water per gallon or why chipmunks eat annual flowers in the park ?
Chipmunks, maybe. Cost of cleaning water (from 1000 different sources, with 1000 different pollutants 1000 different levels of pollutant, with 1000 different types and ages of equipment), not a chance.
Is one reason crime varies so widely in small towns because there is so little of it, so when something happens it skews the figures for the one year far, far from what they were? I'd think a 10 year average would be the thing to use for towns, rather than a yearly compilation. Just thinking out loud, but it does make sense, at least to me.Living rural , about fifteen years ago , I went to a fish and game seminar about hunting ethics , crimes , introducing kids into the field etc.........Warden says ," in the last couple of decades normally urban crimes have evolved to the rural areas , dope growing , drug running , human trafficing ,the ditching of stolen property and bodies , ........It's all becoming a little "muddier "......?
Being's I'm from managing in the construction trades , one of my pet peeves has always been waste , redundancy in all costs of doing business , Now , municipally I see incredible waste simply from non-pruductivity for one .or from say each rural town having a road grader , or any little used piece of equipment , to say each small town paying for certain things that could be easily shared among towns. Interestingly in Vermont , the state just passed legislation to combine school district supervisory unions , does a couple of things , makes it cheaper for all small towns and reduces state grants and funding reduces office help.
Just thinking .............Interestingly, the school district I live in is the largest in the state. Not because my town is so large, but because it includes half the major city next door in an effort to control management costs. It's been that way for decades.
Good to see Vermont taking the road conservative Idaho has followed for years.Hey I see yesterday Idaho Is the fastest growing state in the union today .
Be vigilant !It is. And to our great dismay, a great many are coming in from California, and then demanding that we convert to the brand of socialism that caused the problems they were trying to leave behind. Pretty scary, but I figure I'll be dead and gone before there are enough of them to cause real problems.
That exact mentality is whats destroying northern and rural New England , City escapees who rebuild the rural towns to that which they ran from , hence the tax revenues and spending we've been discussing .
-It totally bankrupted Vermont in less than twenty years
-Corporate entities are escaping these area's by the hundreds-jobs too
-Property taxes have doubled ,tripled , guad.
-Urban crimes have immigrated with them
-Their stretched economy has driven graduates out of northern N.E.
-Family farms gone because of increased property values C.O.D business
Can't move to the country without the luxuries they left behind , sidewalks ,
streetlights , community transportation , more schools, museums etc.....
Remember the picturesque Vermont , barns , three colored cows in the pastures , horses in the fields , ........it's all new Mcmansions , paved driveways , metal sided malls , new foreign car dealerships , overtaxed police , municipal infrastructures ,
pave those gravel roads , increases in traffic .
May be. One person's socialism is another's cooperation. But when there are no losers, when no one is required to pay for another person's wants, it's hard to see the socialism. In this case it seems just a way to cut costs, not to squeeze more money to give away.
The reality is that there are ONLY 7 US states who have the highest taxes in the country, totally attributable to the fact these 7 states get 55 cents for every $1 they pay in federal taxes. While the remaining Republican "receiver" states get from $1.35 up to Alaska's $1.87. (Ref: GAO.gov report 2014).
Now with the new tax law, these 7 states can no longer continue to increase state taxes to flush it to Republican states all while our states struggle to meet our states' needs.
The Republican states are in for a huge surprise. Since all federal taxes coming from the states sit in state treasuries until they are dispersed to the Fed, these states might just refuse to turn over all of that SS, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention double taxation from state income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes.
Guess what happens to the GOP states when they don't live off Dem state tax dollars?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
So many of you honestly can't get this ? That if the taxes taken away from you are cut AND the cost of the government's doing business is cut as well , that you STILL think of this as the "cost " of the tax cut ?
I must be trapped in a alternate universe . - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Here AGAIN , when liberals cant win a political argument , it's
right wing ;|
-ignorance
-inbreeding
-rednecking
-stubborn
-racist
-bigotry
Now , no political party has ever shown more hypocrisy to women then todays democrats , who collectively honor and personally condemn as in the Clinton hypocrisies , I'm not only talking about Bill but Hilary , I mean how does "Litigated Bimbo's " describe women today , how does it honor you ? So yes let's weaponize a few celebrities for effect and chastise the entire gender personally by naked hypocrisy . What ,as long as "my man " is in power and not yours , is That the new woman's cause ?
Personally , I think women have come a long ways and I'm proud of that , but individually some of you are your own worst enemy supporting such political hypocrisy .
Pot calling the kettle......Related Discussions
- 37
Donald Trump's Tax Plan: Who does it help Really?
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
The latest analysis of who benefits most (in terms of percentage change) from Donald Trump's tax plan. It was done by an Obama economic adviser AND agreed to by the conservative Tax Foundation (funded by corporations, the Koch Foundation, among others). Therefore it is essentially a...
- 32
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?
by SheriSapp 9 years ago
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?Why do the liberals REFUSE to understand that the deficit spending MUST be stopped or the nation will become premanently bankrupt?
- 21
When Large Corps Cause Social Harm - Shouldn't They Pay For It?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
In other forums, Seattle's "head tax" was brought up as gov't overreach to willie-nillie tax those who can pay it. (I am still thinking about it.) But the Seattle city council had a reason - a reason that my sense of justice finds compelling.It goes like this: As more and more...
- 92
Why True Conservatives are Repulsed By Time Waltz
by Readmikenow 4 months ago
As a Conservative MAGA Republican, I can say there is not one single, solitary aspect of Time Waltz I find appealing. I’m not alone. Most conservatives I know are equally repulsed by him or are worse than myself. Waltz is as far left of a nut case as there is in existence.He...
- 66
Is the Republican Party the Pedophile Party?
by Allen Donald 6 years ago
Note: this forum is the direct result of a conservative poster's implication through a single example on facebook of a anti-conservative pedophile posting, that Democrats are linked to pedophiles.So, given the revelations in Pennsylvania of 300 conservative priests molesting children with over...
- 27
Democrats only vote for candidates to retain 'services'?
by Credence2 8 years ago
I guess I get kind of annoyed when I constantly hear many conservatives say that Democrats get their votes from people who only want to retain their Government benefits. I can think of a lot of people that would be concerned about maintaining benefits that: federal pensioners, retired military,...