[Aremay]

I like to remember what Oliver Wendell Holmes once said - "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society." For most American 'liberals' - which seems to me to be a very broad term stretching from a few on the centre-right, across the centre ground and into the beginnings of social democracy - the very basic notion is that an improved tax system - one which uses taxes both as an disincentive away from what are considered 'vices' - smoking, gambling, pollution and so on - and as a means to ensure that those who can pay more, do, in order to ensure that the state as the means to help support, or provide, a more equal society.

Truth be told, though I'm not a fan of the big state, I can see why they think that - or appear to, in my eyes. Many groups have political access and power - not all of them big companies, and they rise and fall depending on the issues. NOW certainly will have more influence on a bill on Marriage in the House than, say, United Airlines. The corporations, however, need to come to accept that if they want the trained, healthy, properly housed workforce they need to stay strong, then they need to pay their taxes in the country where the money is earnt, to invest now for future prosperity.

Parts of that read like a Blair speech. I'm slightly worried :P

[cmikes]

Liberals say "lets tax more and spend more". Conservatives say "let's tax less and spend more, lol!!!".

You're ignoring the simple fact that, to a certain but finite point, cutting taxes increases revenue. Every time tax rates have gone down, from the Kennedy tax cuts of the 60s, to the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s, to the Bush tax cuts of the 00s, revenue has gone up. By increasing economic activity, increasing job creation, and increasing the amount of money that can be invested into a more efficient economy (i.e. private sector vs. government), you increase the total amount of money to be taxed. For instance, revenue to the federal government almost doubled during the Reagan years, it was the inability to control spending that led to the deficient. On the point about spending, you'll get absolutely no argument from me. Both parties have failed miserably to control spending. I'm not against federal spending, to a point, but when you have billions of dollars going to politician's pet projects that have nothing to do with the responsibilities of the government, it drags down the whole system.

Now of course, you need some taxes to go to the government. The government does have responsibilities that are constitutional and necessary. There does come a point on the scale that the government takes in less taxes than the increased economic activity justifies. The argument on the conservative side is about where that point is. On the liberal side, to some, not all, the point isn't even about finding the range that maximizes the revenue coming into the government. I believe it was at the Saddleback interview that then candidate Obama was asked about the fact that raising taxes actually causes revenue to drop, and his reply was that it didn't matter, because it was more about fairness in the tax code. So basically, even if it causes revenue to drop, raising taxes is good because it makes the 'rich' pay more. Class warfare at its finest.

[PBVBROOK]

Liberals have this absurd notion that one should pay for what one buys. Unlike Conservatives who wish to pass debt for their excesses along to thier children, liberals want to pay for what we have purchased.

Of course many conservatives believe we should balance the budget. Thier notion of how to do this is to stop spending money on poor people but to continue to spend enormous sums on businesses that export jobs, eliminate benefits and import slave labor. But never fear. We have them ny thier proverbial cojones these days. I find it refreshing.

[Wolfman]

People seem to be under this grand dillusion that the DNC is a Leftist Liberal Party, and that the GOP is a Rightist Conservative Party. This is simply untrue.
In terms of what they actually advocate (ie party policy) the DNC is a Right Wing, Liberal Party, and the GOP is a Leftist Conservative Party. The DNC advocates a bigger government, which is a Right Wing position. Whereas the major thing I hear Repub.s babbling and screaming about is that the government is too big, a Leftist position.
In terms of actual exectution (ie, in the real world most often) the DNC is a Right Wing Centrist Party, and the GOP is a confused Conservative Party. The DNC actually does very little in terms of Liberal action. And the GOP spends about as much, but without really expanding the size of the government.

It's all very stupid, really.

[PBVBROOK]

the GOP is a Leftist Conservative Party.

Uh. No it is not.

DNC advocates a bigger government, which is a Right Wing position.

No it is not.

The DNC actually does very little in terms of Liberal action.

True. It is a wholly owned subsidary of big business. It is a pro-business party that is only slightly more centrist than the Republican Party. So slightly that there is really no difference in the two.

There is no "Liberal Party" in the US. (Worthy of notice.) There is the Green Party, which is progressive but impotent.

It is very sad that few people have read "The Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater and "God and Man at Yale" by William F. Buckley.

Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.”

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom”

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

Buckley

“There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.”

“I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. “

"I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence."

It may be fun to play with terms but it is not very smart. It is little more than grandstanding. Please stop.

[Zerogouki]

Liberals have this absurd notion that one should pay for what one buys. Unlike Conservatives who wish to pass debt for their excesses along to thier children, liberals want to pay for what we have purchased.

What the hell are you talking about? Since when have liberals ever cared about where the money for their socialist bullshit comes from?

Of course many conservatives believe we should balance the budget. Thier notion of how to do this is to stop spending money on poor people but to continue to spend enormous sums on businesses that export jobs, eliminate benefits and import slave labor.

Yeah, liberals never spend other people's money on corporate welfare, especially not in such huge amounts as $787 billion.

[PBVBROOK]

Yeah, liberals never spend other people's money on corporate welfare, especially not in such huge amounts as $787 billion.

God that ignorant comment pisses me off. Once and for all. Pay attention there is going to be a test. Obama is NOT A LIBERAL. The Decocratic party IS NOT A LIBERAL PARTY. The policies that bailed out the financial industry ARE NOT LIBERAL POLICIES.

Got it?

[Wolfman]

Uh. No it is not.

Well, if the GOP stands for smaller government, and that is a Left of Center view, then yes, they a Leftist party. You can argue with me, but try actually saying something other then 'uh, no it's not'

No it is not.

See above

[Zerogouki]

Obama is NOT A LIBERAL. The Decocratic party IS NOT A LIBERAL PARTY.

[PBVBROOK]

Yea. Roll you eyes and laugh. Here is a challenge that is way to big for you. Please tell us how the Democratic Party qualifies as a liberal organization. Then try to find someone who agrees with you.

You are way over your head with this one. I would quit now rather than dig an even deeper hole.

[Zerogouki]

Please tell us how the Democratic Party qualifies as a liberal organization.

* Pro-gay rights
* Pro-environment
* Pro-Universal Health Coverage
* Pro-abortion
* Pro-public education
* Pro-higher taxes on the rich
* Anti-balanced budgets
* Anti-gun rights
* more likely than Republicans to support legalizing cannabis
* more likely than Republicans to support animal rights
* they call themselves liberal
* everyone else also calls them liberal

[Wolfman]

Pro-gay rights

Only by comparison, and thats mostly a populist position. Of the various DNC controlled states, only a few have a pro-gay marriage law. And Cali has a law specificily against gay marriage

Pro-environment

Again, only by comparison to the GOP.

Pro-Universal Health Coverage

Some are, some aren't. And wanting a Universal Health care system is not the same thing as being Liberal.

Pro-public education

There may be GOPers who are against public education, but the official platform (as far as I'm aware) is basicly indifferent.

Pro-higher taxes on the rich

Not nessicarily a Liberal position. Escepially since the GOP also raises taxes

Anti-balanced budgets

Clinton was the last pres to balance the budget, Bush massivly unbalanced it, and Reaganonics is basicly 'buy now, worry about paying it never'

Anti-gun rights

Politicians maybe, but I doubt this is the whole party. Also, this is not nessicarily a Liberal position.

they call themselves liberal

And I call myself The Pope. Does that make it true? Fuck no, good to go?

everyone else also calls them liberal

And my freinds call me The Pope, does that mean I'm the Pope? Fuck no, good to go?

[PBVBROOK]

One by one:

Pro-gay rights

Passed "dont' ask don't tell". Obama stalling on repealing. Obama opposes gay marriage. Next.

Pro-environment

No action on environmental issues. Stalled increasing CAFE standards then passed a watered down version. Refused to reconsider the mining act. Has yet to spend the zillions promised for alternative energy.

pro-abortion

Pro a woman’s right to choose. On abortion? “Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous.” (Democratic party platform)

Pro-Universal Health Coverage

Nonsense. Took the single payer option off of the table. Requires payment not universal coverage.

Pro-public education

Obama talks a good game but so far only stimulous money and very little of that. Tax credits and a miniscule increase in pell grants. Sweeping changes since the Democrats have been in charge? NOT.

Pro-higher taxes on the rich

Mere showmanship. The Democrats just asked for and began spending 750 billion to bail out the richest Americans in the form of TARP legislation. This despite overwhelming opposition by the American people who saw it as just that; bailing out rich folks. Their proposed tax hikes on the rich are 3% at most. Not significant at all. And no change to the capital gains tax. For an idea to have merit it must be accompanied by action. And, oh by the way, the Democratic party is the richest party.

Now in the ‘follow the money segment’ we have among the top 20 contributors to the democratic party:

Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase
Citigroup
Time Warner

Lump Financials and Real Estate together and they become the largest contributing industry to the Democratic party.

Yea. They really are going after the rich folks, aren’t they? But not in the way you imagine.

Anti-balanced budgets

WRONG! Here is a direct quote from the democratic party platform: “We believe in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt, while Republicans continue to put huge burdens on future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations. We want to restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.” Next

”Anti gun-rights”

WRONG AGAIN. Here it is from the Democratic Party platform: “We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do”.

more likely than Republicans to support legalizing cannabis.

You guessed it: Wrong again. From the Democratic Party platform: “We should send a strong message to every child: drugs are wrong & can kill you. We need to dry up drug demand, hold up drugs at the border, and break up the drug rings that spread poison on our streets. We should open more drug courts, to speed justice for drug-related crimes; double the number of drug hot-spots where we aggressively target our enforcement efforts; expand drug treatment for at-risk youth; make sure that all of our school zones are drug-free; and provide drug treatment upon demand.”

more likely than Republicans to support animal rights

Nonsense. The party is moot on this point. You are speculating. But the American people are unambiguous on this one. Poll results” Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur: 61% to 35% think it is morally acceptable--with the "acceptable" figure up from 54% last year.”

Obama introduced a bill to stop horse slaughter in Illinois but then …” McCain co-sponsored new legislation to stop horse slaughter, backed a bill to stop the shipment of live birds between states for the only purpose of cockfighting, supported a bill to stop the killing of bears by ending trade in their gall bladders and other viscera and organs.

Senator McCain also took a position against the fur industry, by voting to eliminate a $2 million subsidy for the mink industry. And he voted against allowing drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saving the thousands of animals who lived there.” Hmmmmm.

“they call themselves liberal.”

Source? Show me where the party did that. But even if they did…..North Korea calls itself “democratic”. So your point is?

everyone else also calls them liberal

I don’t and I am a liberal. Fox and some neocons call them liberals but that is about it.

Is it more liberal than the Republican party? On some issues, yes. Maybe most. But it is far from liberal. Compared to our real liberal party, The Green Party, democrats are positively right wing.

You have some support from the American people though. In a poll out just today the American people said:

“A new Gallup Poll finds 46 percent of Americans describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," up from from 39 percent last year. It hasn't been that high since 1994.
Meanwhile in the same poll, those seeing Republicans as too conservative held constant at 43 percent from last year to this.
Independents are more likely to view both parties as being too extreme, the survey found. But 38 percent of Independents say the Democratic Party is about right, while only 25 percent of Independents say that about the Republican Party.”

American liberals are appalled by this. Republicans are thrilled. European liberals must find it hysterical.

Summary: The Democratic party is a mainstream conservative organization with middle of the road political ideas. At best. I would characterize them as a sold-out old-school political organization selling influence and buying votes. About the same as Republicans.

Your error comes from not understanding true liberalism. Liberalism is not what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say it is. Far from it. Read the Green Party platform. Listen to Democracy Now. Read Amy Goodman’s books. Then read the two books by real conservatives I mentioned. Then you may begin to see the truth about political labeling these days. As it is. You are, forgivably, mistaken.

[Zerogouki]

Of the various DNC controlled states, only a few have a pro-gay marriage law. And Cali has a law specificily against gay marriage

The vote on that law was damn near tied. The passage of Prop 8 was a shock.

(on the environment)
Again, only by comparison to the GOP.

So all of the pro-environment legislation that Democrats have passed was just a mass hallucination?

wanting a Universal Health care system is not the same thing as being Liberal.

They are closely linked.

There may be GOPers who are against public education, but the official platform (as far as I'm aware) is basicly indifferent.

Whenever someone yells "our public schools are failing!" in a crowded capitol building, it's always the Democrats who want to throw more money at the problem, and Republicans who want to shift the educational burden toward private and home schooling.

(on taxes)
Not nessicarily a Liberal position.

Since when?

Escepially since the GOP also raises taxes

Since when?

Newt Gingrich was the last Speaker of the House to balance the budget

Fixed. Clinton fought hard for more spending that he had no idea how to pay for; Newt blocked him.

Bush massivly unbalanced it

Yeah, well, some guys with towels on their heads hijacked a few jet aircraft, and some unexpected military expenses followed. Also, Bush is not the only Republican in existence.

and Reaganonics is basicly 'buy now, worry about paying it never'

No, that was the policy of the Democrats who controlled Congress (and therefore the budget) during every single second of Reagan's Presidency.

(on gun laws)
Politicians maybe, but I doubt this is the whole party.

The nation's first Federal gun law was pushed by a Democratic president with Democratic majorities in Congress. The Brady Bill and Federal Assault Weapons Ban were pushed by a Democratic president with Democratic majorities in Congress. An explicit endorsement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was included in the 2004 platform. Obama has pushed for anti-gun legislation. Nancy Pelosi has pushed for anti-gun legislation. The Wicked Witches of the West, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, have both pushed for anti-gun laws. The cities (San Francisco, Washington DC) and states (New York, Massachusetts) with the most lopsided Democratic majorities have the worst/most gun laws, while those with solid Republican majorities (Texas, Alaska) have the best/fewest.

Also, this is not nessicarily a Liberal position.

Since when?

And I call myself The Pope.

Passed "dont' ask don't tell".

The policy was crafted by Colin Powell. Bill Clinton campaigned against it in 1992, as did many Democratic presidential candidates in the 1980s. Congressional opposition to the policy during this time was led by Sam Nunn, a Democrat. And sayeth the Wiki, "In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military"

Obama stalling on repealing. Obama opposes gay marriage.

Obama is not the only Democrat in existence.

No action on environmental issues. Stalled increasing CAFE standards then passed a watered down version. Refused to reconsider the mining act. Has yet to spend the zillions promised for alternative energy.

Are you still talking only about Obama?

Pro a woman’s right to choose.

Same thing.

"Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous." (Democratic party platform)

Feel-good rhetoric with no relevance to real-world voting patterns.

Nonsense. Took the single payer option off of the table. Requires payment not universal coverage.

Obama sees the current proposal as a stepping stone to UHC and as a means to drive private insurance companies out of business. And what about the hundreds of Democrats in office who support a single-payer system, like Hillary Clinton?

Obama talks a good game but so far blah blah blah

Still obsessed with Obama, eh?

The Democrats just asked for and began spending 750 billion to bail out the richest Americans in the form of TARP legislation.

No. They asked for 787 billion to bail out mega-huge corporations. "The richest Americans" did not need to be bailed out because they were not going bankrupt.

Their proposed tax hikes on the rich are 3% at most. Not significant at all.

But it's still a tax-hike on the rich.

Here is a direct quote from the democratic party platform: “We believe in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt...

Funny how their actions are the exact opposite of this.

We want to restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth."

You mean the budget discipline that Newt Gingrich and other Republicans advocated, and which the Democrats at the time opposed? Fascinating.

Here it is from the Democratic Party platform: “We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms

Funny how their actions are the exact opposite of this.

fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole

Oh, there we go. That's the opposition to gun rights that I was referring to.

From the Democratic Party platform: “We should send a strong message to every child: drugs are wrong & can kill you. We need to dry up drug demand, hold up drugs at the border, and break up the drug rings that spread poison on our streets. We should open more drug courts, to speed justice for drug-related crimes; double the number of drug hot-spots where we aggressively target our enforcement efforts; expand drug treatment for at-risk youth; make sure that all of our school zones are drug-free; and provide drug treatment upon demand.”

Funny how they don't specifically mention medical cannabis, which was what I was talking about.

Nonsense. The party is moot on this point. You are speculating.

Not at all. There aren't many animal-rights enthusiasts in Congress, but they are predominantly Democrats like Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich.

But the American people are unambiguous on this one. Poll results” Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur: 61% to 35% think it is morally acceptable--with the "acceptable" figure up from 54% last year.”

Relevance?

McCain co-sponsored blah blah blah... Senator McCain also took a position against blah blah blah...

McCain is the poster boy for mavericks and RINOs. You fail epically.

Your error comes from not understanding true liberalism. Liberalism is not what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

IN CONCLUSION...

Maybe in the future, you should learn what the hell you're talking about before calling me wrong.

[PBVBROOK]

Maybe in the future, you should learn what the hell you're talking about before calling me wrong.

Do you think you could go back and refute just one part of my posts. You know nothing about modern liberalism. You continue to consider the definition of liberal as a comparison of republican and democrat which is silly. It is little more than a knee jerk Rush Limbaugh reaction.

I recommend you read at least something about modern liberalism. I recommend you listen when you are talking to a liberal instead of waiting for your turn to go off at the mouth about them. I recommend you go to the Green Party website and see what a real liberal party recommends.
There you will actually see the whole gamut from reasonable progressive ideas to absurdly far left sloganeering but at least you will become acquainted with where the far left is.

If you want to find the average American liberal look to the environmental movement. It seems to me that I meed the smarter kind of American lefty there.

Your insistance in labeling the Democratic Party liberal is an insult to every true progressive. And it is monumentally naive.

[Dave]

WRONG AGAIN. Here it is from the Democratic Party platform: “We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do”.

What? The "assault weapons" ban and closing the gunshow loophole are both anti gun rights. And while Republicans are not innocent, it is largely Democrats who have pushed the gun control agenda. Lately this has been moved to the backburner since it's an electoral loser.

[Wolfman]

The vote on that law was damn near tied. The passage of Prop 8 was a shock.

Doesn't change the fact that a Liberal State has a law banning gay marriage, or the small number of Liberal States with pro gay marriage laws

So all of the pro-environment legislation that Democrats have passed was just a mass hallucination?

I said by comparison. meaning, thy're pro-enviroment when you look at the GOP. But that is the only way they would be actually Pro-Enviroment.

They are closely linked.

You ignored the rest of my point.

Whenever someone yells "our public schools are failing!" in a crowded capitol building, it's always the Democrats who want to throw more money at the problem, and Republicans who want to shift the educational burden toward private and home schooling

You do realise of course that I'm talking about party platform, not individuals in the part you quoted.

Since when?

Since Liberal refers to cultural views, not views regarding the size or power of the government. So, always.

[quoe]Since when[/quote]

Well, I recall my taxes going up last year while my income remainded the same.

Yeah, well, some guys with towels on their heads hijacked a few jet aircraft, and some unexpected military expenses followed. Also, Bush is not the only Republican in existence

First of all, don't take that attitude with me. I may only be a lance corporal, but I don't put up with civilians that think they know more about the war then I do, especially war hawks that never served. I'm gonna geuss that you never did. Mostly since if you did, you'd probably be prettyy pod that we even went into Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and that entire fucking war was for oil. If it had bull shit to do with 9/11 we'd have supported the Pakistanis alot more in there own fight against the Taliban, and we'd have invaded Saudi Arabi, which is here most the 9/11 terrorist were from, and where most of the funding came from. However, two wars were no where near the only thing that fucked our economy. Even if you take military spending only, I still blame the fucking army. There population is massive, and for no damn reason. A good chunk of the time they lose a city, they have to get the Marines to retake it. Because the Army, with it's huge population, more advanced equipment, and massive number of tanks and artillery, cann't hold a fucking city. They have to get the Marines, with 20 year old rifles, hardling any arty, with a tiny population (by comparison) to do it. Yah, the war fucked our economy. Nothing else.

No, that was the policy of the Democrats who controlled Congress (and therefore the budget) during every single second of Reagan's Presidency

Uh hu. And the pres hasd nothing to do with the Budget? Nothing at all? And it's called Dmoecraticconics? And it was Congress whoi went around advocating it? Bull shit, this is just another scape goat.

Since when?

Again, gun regulation is a matter of government size and power, not one that has to do with cultural views in of itself.

[PBVBROOK]

What? The "assault weapons" ban and closing the gunshow loophole are both anti gun rights. And while Republicans are not innocent, it is largely Democrats who have pushed the gun control agenda. Lately this has been moved to the backburner since it's an electoral loser

Here we go:

First. The Democrat party is not against gun ownership. Thier platform and past performance proves it.

Second. The gunshow loophole is a joke. We have a perfectly reasonable law that concerns handguns yet we allow folks who go to a gunshow not to comply with the law. And the vast majority of the people selling at gun shows are licensed gun dealers, with FFL's. No one has proposed a ban on one private party selling to another. And remember. This law only applies to handguns.

Third: The "gun control agenda" is a term used by those who believe that there should be no control on who owns or carries a gun. All that has been proposed is a ban on assault weapons (absolutely no reasonable use except to kill people at relatively close range and the control on who is allowed to purchase a handgun. The majority of handguns are only usefull for killing people. That is why I own mine. And I am glad that felons and unstable people have to go through a little hassle to buy a handgun. Why not wait a few days?

Gun control is not really a liberal issue. I know few who care about it one way or another. In fact. Many of my liberal friends are gun owners. Even the green party goes no further than to support the Brady bill.

So this issue is a real non-starter for liberals. But for the record, moderate gun control is a popular notion., It was not until April of this year that the polls became close on the whether or not to control guns. Previously the majority of Americans supported gun control. They still do but now it is about even.

[Zerogouki]

Do you think you could go back and refute just one part of my posts.

I did. Eighteen parts, actually.

Doesn't change the fact that a Liberal State has a law banning gay marriage

Let me put it this way: nearly all of the Democrats/liberals in the state voted against the law.

I said by comparison. meaning, thy're pro-enviroment when you look at the GOP. But that is the only way they would be actually Pro-Enviroment.

Again, all of the pro-environment legislation that Democrats have passed was just a mass hallucination?

You do realise of course that I'm talking about party platform, not individuals in the part you quoted.

I find real-world voting and campaigning patterns to be more relevant than the wishy-washy rhetoric that is worth no more than the paper that it's printed on.

Since Liberal refers to cultural views, not views regarding the size or power of the government.

Well, I recall my taxes going up last year while my income remainded the same.

Good for you.

I'm gonna geuss that you never did. Mostly since if you did, you'd probably be prettyy pod that we even went into Iraq.

I'm not eligible for military duty because I'm virtually blind in my left eye. However, my best friend, Jonathan Dickey, is currently in the Army and still believes that the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing to do (though like any sane person, he realizes that the occupation was very horribly mishandled and Rummy should not have been in office).

They had nothing to do with 9/11

9/11 was not our reason for invading Iraq.

and that entire fucking war was for oil.

This has never been substantiated, and directly contradicts common sense. If we had given a shit about their oil, we could have just asked the UN to end economic sanctions against them.

However, two wars were no where near the only thing that fucked our economy.

On the contrary; military spending usually helps the economy. It's our budget that took a blow. Please take your Ritalin and pay attention.

I still blame the fucking army blah blah blah lose a city blah blah Marines blah blah

Uh hu. And the pres hasd nothing to do with the Budget? Nothing at all? And it's called Dmoecraticconics? And it was Congress whoi went around advocating it? Bull shit, this is just another scape goat.

The President can flap his gums a lot, but Congress has the first and last word on every budget. Read the Constitution sometime, you might learn something.

Again, gun regulation is a matter of government size and power, not one that has to do with cultural views in of itself.

A load of shit.

[PBVBROOK]

Let me put it this way: nearly all of the Democrats/liberals in the state voted against the law.

Wrong. You really need to get your facts straight. In California nearly 70% of blacks (who are overwhelmingly democrat) voted to ban gay marriage. 53% of Hispanics (who also are majority democrat) voted to ban gay marriage.

In LA County, one of the most democratic in the state bout half of registered voters (51%) are Democrats, 27 percent are Republicans, and 18 percent are decline-to-state. In November 2000, 53 percent were Democrats, 28 percent were Republicans, and 14 percent were decline-to-state. In the November 2004 general election, LA County voters favored Democratic candidate John F. Kerry over George W. Bush (63% to 36%), while voters in the rest of the state favored Kerry over Bush by a smaller margin (54% to 44%).

Now. In LA county over half of the voters voted to ban gay marriage. This could not happen unless there were very substantial numbers of democrats who voted for the ban. Add to this the fact that 65.9% of all campaign contributions in California went to Democrats and you see a trend here? The Democrats are not as liberal as you would have us believe.

Top it off with the fact that Obama opposes gay marriage and we do not have the picture you paint.

Facts are pesky little things. They are worth checking.