Worker 1: I pick up their garbage! Worker 2: I fix their jets and limousines! Worker 3: I build their mansions! Workers 1-3 Together: And we are middle class Republicans! Some jealous people call us crazy, suckers, authoritarians. But we willingly surrender pay, benefits and our very lives to make our wealthy employers more profit and comfort for a spectacularly luxurious lifestyle that well never experience. Some Dimorats say, Join a Labor Union to level the bargaining field with your Boss. We say, NO WAY, Comrade! Labor Unions are Cartels and if we dont like our jobs, we can just find new ones. Thats how the free market works! Dumbocrats. Worker 3: I didnt think I was giving up enough pay and benefits so I volunteered my son and daughter for military service in the latest unlawful invasion of some dirt-poor third world country. My kids are heroes. And they would tell you that themselves if they were still alive. But my bosses at KBR made a killing on governmental contracts. We are all heroes now and we know it. Worker 2: It is not fair to burden the wealthy job creators with taxes, environmental regulations, or fair pay and labor laws. They earned that wealth all by themselves and no liberal democrat will take it away to give to terrorists and minorities. Worker 1: Someday, I too will be a rich boss even though I stand a better chance of hitting the Lotto ten times in a row. Math and statistics were removed from the public schools in favor of Bible studies so I cant give you the precise odds of my future success. But I have faith that Ill be rich and I dont want any jealous leftists or statists confiscating my hard earned wealth. All 3 Together: We did our part for them, now you can too. Vote REPUBLICAN and give until it hurts .you, not them.
And somehow the republicans have gotten more civil rights legislation passed then democrats. And somehow the democrats have sent us to war more times then the republicans. Interesting huh?
No, not interesting at all. Do we have to regurgitate the Dixiecrat migration? Are you comparing WWII to the illegal Iraq and Afghani ventures? Any time you peel away the veneer of half truths and lies from republican spin, the truer account is disturbing for the right wingers.
It's interesting only in that it is documented history. The democrats have a long and shameful history of racism and the oppression of civil rights.
Democrats authorized that war. If they were so pure they should have stopped it. Would you like me to post all the democratic quotes regarding Saddam for proof? Polk was censured by congress for illegally picking a fight with Mexico and starting that war. Johnson conjured up an attack to get us into Vietnam. Bush asked for permission.
A considerable amount of workers are oblivious that their taxes are being used to placate the wealthy.
I wasn't aware the government sent me a check every month just because I am wealthy. I had better check my mailbox!
Bush did not need congressional permission and his signing statement to the IR says so. The call to invade Iraq was his and his alone. Nice try. Ike was the first player in the Viet Nam war. What the hell do I care about Polk? Just to put a fine a point on it: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Who is determining the Iraqi threat? Who? The president. Who ordered the military attack? The commander in chief of the armed forces. Not Congress, the president. You revise history to paint a better picture. - - - Updated - - - I believe you are thinking of the South and not the Democratic Party.
Bush only has 60 days to act without an approval from congress per the war powers act. They authorized it. You don't care about Polk because it proves you wrong and you also skipped over Johnsons blatant lie to get us into Vietnam where far more soldiers died than in Iraq. And Truman was the first player in Vietnam, not Ike. But neither of them sent a war force. Johnson did.
It might work that way. Lord knows the private wealthy send checks every month to politicians to own this country. Governmental R&D that was GIVEN to private interests is more than enough to validate Alucard's point.
Nope. Not Truman, Ike. Otherwise pony up some proof like this: http://thevietnamwar.info/us-presidents-during-the-vietnam-war/ here were 5 U.S. Presidents during its involvement in the Vietnam War. They were: 1. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) etc. The war powers resolution is merely a consultative requirement. Authorization from Congress is not required unless the actual fighting goes past two months. Better yet, let President Bush tell you: While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=64386 How many days of fighting occurred in Iraq prior to the passage of the IR? None. You don't understand how the resolution works. The WPR is a check on presidential power as Cmdr in Chief of the armed forces. I still don't care about Polk. - - - Updated - - - I'm sorry but you aren't interesting or important enough to respond to anymore.
Ike did not lie to send a fighting force to Vietnam, Johnson did. Any president after Ike could have acted in a different way. Congress had the ability to defund Iraq at any time but not one democrat attempted to do so. And once again, would you like the democratic quotes supporting the removal of saddam?
If I could "like" your post a million times I would...............seriously. I've always maintained that neither side is 100% free from corruption or corporate manipulation through campaign support, nor are all of the platforms on the left a perfect fit for every citizen.......................but..........................you really have to have your head in the sand "not" "to see the blatant hypocrisy (as you so brilliantly pointed out) on the right that keeps a strangle hold on the very people that they keep claiming they want to help. I've always said the true platform of the Republican party is: "I got's mine, go f4@k yourself" Time has this funny way of revealing all things in the end, and I am more than confident that one day almost all Americans will finally wake up to the joke that is the Republican party. Great Post!!!!!
Following the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the south began a major shift from democrat to republican. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many southern racists abandoned the democrat party over its new "support" for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the republican party (which was fully a century ahead of the democrats on those very issues) makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, amazingly, virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties somehow "switched," and that most racist democrats became republicans. They do this in an attempt to transfer all the past sins of the democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the republicans, and all the past virtues of the republicans (ending slavery, civil rights acts, etc) onto the democrats. It's worked well, because today the democrats who are not racists fully believe that racism is a sole facet of the republican party, when their own party is the source, and the continuation of it, and for solely political purposes. The parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government, in order to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposed this devious strategy as greedy racists. The democrats have always been the REAL racists from the moment the republican party was formed to champion civil rights and to oppose and ultimately abolish slavery, and they remain so today.
This is true. The Republican Party has always led on civil rights. They tried to push the civil rights act of 57 and more democrats voted against the civil rights act of 64 then republicans did.bush also pushed through a major civil rights act in the 90s. What have the democrats done?
I've heard this accusation many times before about Republicans, but I've always wondered. Do the companies of George Soros and other 1 percenter liberals pay more and I don't mean 50 cents more to their employees? If all of these claims about Republicans are true then the Democrats should be opposite and paying their employees dollars more; since they are for the people and distribute their wealth to the masses. Right..........
It's a two party country. End of issue. More white people used Welfare than black people...when we had it? I'm reaching here b/c your argument that the democratic party was actively creating dependency on racial minorities is an unsupported bit of crazy but I'm certain it sounds good in your head and plays amongst the racists of this country. In other words, if you believe that, you'll believe just about anything. - - - Updated - - - Then how did the democrats create a society of racial minority dependency as averred by your pal and supported by your contention? Forget it. You just might try to answer that. - - - Updated - - - Who's George Soros? Are you implying that the Republican Party is the party of Labor Unions? Are democrats homogenous from top to bottom? Only a right wing authoritarian would make such a boldly ridiculous statement.
Hahahaha....you are a sucker. Democrats write legislation all the time that keep the rich in competitive advantages. Also, if it were up to Democrats and weak Republicans, worker 1, 2, and 3 would need an interpreter to speak the narrative above.
Please reread this part: "The parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government, in order to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposed this devious strategy as greedy racists." This is what you just did. You're playing your part well, congrats.
Hopefully, some day, both establishment Republicans and Democrats alike will come to their senses and move to a libertarian stance. Until you do, you will all remain owned.
The rich liberals support various forms of regulation and higher corporate taxes. They fight to penalize others for pouring CO2 into the environment and support higher national minimum wage laws. All of this makes them seem very magnanimous until you look into the actual results. The cost of these ineffectual burdens basically render the ruling class untouchable from new competition. The biggest joke is how the Democrats have convinced their constituents that they are for the working class. Sure, they are more apt to increase some sort of subsidy or benefit, but they are dropping the ceiling of your potential with each move. It's fairly impressive. There are new Democrat politicians that so believe in this ruse that they actually believe they are helping the populace as a whole. You have to step back sometimes and marvel at the brilliance of the progressive movement. The real genius is the false antagonist in this play, the Republicans. An idealistic movement centered around individual freedoms sprang up, causing internal strife inside the Republican Party. These two factions, Republicans and Democrats united the populace through various types of propaganda against the one group that was actually trying to restore a smidgen of power back to the people. This group of rebels is not perfect, but the extent that they have been vilified only goes to show the precision, power and tenacity of the ruling class to maintain the perfectly crafted box they have built for the American people.
This is not a fringe argument. Actually, more and more minority leaders are expressing their opposition to the low ceiling that federal assistance has provided to their communities. The havoc that carefully placed federal assistance has on communities is not limited to any race or ethnicity, on that, we agree. New Deal and Great Society Problem is, all we have are Right Wing Authoritarians and Left Wing Authoritarians.
Please use your Google Fu to educate yourself on the man that is George Soros and all of the "progressive" movements he aids. Not at all, I'm stating that the 1 percenters that give tons of money to the "progressive" movement are HYPOCRITES. Not sure what you're getting at here since I referred to 1 percenters, which clearly indicates not all. Might want to calm down a bit before typing.
