Just what IS conservativism?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If all men were wealthy no one would be wealthy. To be wealthy one has to be able to obtain the services of others and others who are wealthy are not going to be offering their services at cheap prices.

That's why a person living in China would be considered wealthy if they earned $70,000 US/yr. The current, above average wage is the equivalent of $560.00/mth. or $6720.00/yr. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_wage_in_China)

Compare to the US where the average wage is $40,934.93 /yr. (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html) An individual would have to earn over $400,000/yr.

The point is the person in China making $70,000/yr is wealthy because the majority of others are making 1/10 of what he is. He can afford the services of others which is the definition of wealth, not the amount of money per se.

Conservatives do not want all men to be wealthy. That is why they are against unions and minimum wages and guaranteed incomes and social policies, in general. In their unbridled greed they not only do not want others to be wealthy but they want others to suffer needlessly.

That's precisely what Crashk noted and is explained in the link he posted in msg. 42.

K. Marx

Shut up, you're an idiot.

 

[apple0154]

Shut up, you're an idiot.

Link?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Link?

HERE!

 

[Canceled1]

HERE!

That's pretty god damn funny Dix!!!!

 

[cancel2 2022]

ASSHOLE Zombie. Your post is not based on my childhood. It can only be based on YOU. Seek professional help.

It would cost far too much to solve his problems.

 

[apple0154]

HERE!

That looks like one wise cat.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That looks like one wise cat.

Much wiser than its owner, that's for sure! He's obviously a Fat Cat Republican!

 

[Bfgrn]

Keep in mind, the "Great Depression" did not become known as that until afterward. During the Great Depression, it was merely a depression, we had been through several over the years. Most economists will tell you, the depression lasted about 7 years longer than it should have, because of FDR's socialist spending programs. Otherwise, it would have been about 3rd or 4th on the list of historical depressions, and not The Great Depression.

Left wingers don't believe in God endowing man with inalienable rights, therefore, they rely on faith in The State to solve man's problems.

It was conservative icon Edmund Burke who said, 'those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.'

You see Dixie, when conservatives don't like history, they change it. Most economists WON'T tell you the depression lasted about 7 years longer than it should have, because of FDR's socialist spending programs.

But a few economists will try to deceive the American people to stop the current stimulus plan and prevent President Obama from succeeding. They use tactics like claiming 3 and a half million employed workers during the Great Depression were not really employed and by using selective data from a short segment of the New Deal.

The right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them.

 

[Liberty]

Link?

Funny!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It was conservative icon Edmund Burke who said, 'those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.'

You see Dixie, when conservatives don't like history, they change it. Most economists WON'T tell you the depression lasted about 7 years longer than it should have, because of FDR's socialist spending programs.

But a few economists will try to deceive the American people to stop the current stimulus plan and prevent President Obama from succeeding. They use tactics like claiming 3 and a half million employed workers during the Great Depression were not really employed and by using selective data from a short segment of the New Deal.

The right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them.

Sorry, but the Seattle Times is not considered an authoritative source on history, economics, or evaluation of FDR's policies during the Great Depression. It lasted from 1929 into the 1940s. There was no "spectacular economic growth" between 1933 and 1937/38, people were eating DIRT! If anyone is "revising" history, it is you with this stupidity! The median jobless rate during the New Deal was 17.2% and it didn't drop significantly until WWII, when the unemployed were conscripted to go and fight. Spending as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed to over 120%, and much of the massive Federal Debt we have today, is a direct result of policies entrenched by FDR during this time.

Let me revise my original statement... Most non-Keynesian economists will tell you FDR's policies caused the Great Depression to last 7 years longer.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry, but the Seattle Times is not considered an authoritative source on history, economics, or evaluation of FDR's policies during the Great Depression. It lasted from 1929 into the 1940s. There was no "spectacular economic growth" between 1933 and 1937/38, people were eating DIRT! If anyone is "revising" history, it is you with this stupidity! The median jobless rate during the New Deal was 17.2% and it didn't drop significantly until WWII, when the unemployed were conscripted to go and fight. Spending as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed to over 120%, and much of the massive Federal Debt we have today, is a direct result of policies entrenched by FDR during this time.

Let me revise my original statement... Most non-Keynesian economists will tell you FDR's policies caused the Great Depression to last 7 years longer.

Rather than apples to conservatives' fuzzy math - let's go to the great equalizer, the Census Data, and specifically Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938. You can see it right here in graphical format:

Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda). Again, here it is in graphical format:

These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010206/forgotten-math-pre-wwii-new-deal-saw-fastest-drop-unemployment-rate-american-h

 

[Phantasmal]

Rather than apples to conservatives' fuzzy math - let's go to the great equalizer, the Census Data, and specifically Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938. You can see it right here in graphical format:

Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda). Again, here it is in graphical format:

These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010206/forgotten-math-pre-wwii-new-deal-saw-fastest-drop-unemployment-rate-american-h

Thanks, even I can understand this!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LMFAO... So, because we had reached a point where 23.6% were unemployed, and FDR created enough government jobs to decrease it 9%, that is some sign of greatness? Was 14.6% unemployment considered "good" back then or something? The Debt-to-GDP ratio went through the roof! This caused the depression to linger for another 7 years! It's exactly what the idiot in the White House is trying to do now, except he can't create enough government jobs to bring the unemployment down, because we are a much larger country now. I guess eventually he'll get us into WWIII, and send the unemployed off to die in a war? That's what FDR did!

 

[Canceled2]

LMFAO... So, because we had reached a point where 23.6% were unemployed, and FDR created enough government jobs to decrease it 9%, that is some sign of greatness? Was 14.6% unemployment considered "good" back then or something? The Debt-to-GDP ratio went through the roof! This caused the depression to linger for another 7 years! It's exactly what the idiot in the White House is trying to do now, except he can't create enough government jobs to bring the unemployment down, because we are a much larger country now. I guess eventually he'll get us into WWIII, and send the unemployed off to die in a war? That's what FDR did!

It can't hear you...it does not understand the part about "lingering". It thinks 14.6% after 8 years is good and successful because it has faith in it's own itsisms~

 

[Bfgrn]

LMFAO... So, because we had reached a point where 23.6% were unemployed, and FDR created enough government jobs to decrease it 9%, that is some sign of greatness? Was 14.6% unemployment considered "good" back then or something? The Debt-to-GDP ratio went through the roof! This caused the depression to linger for another 7 years! It's exactly what the idiot in the White House is trying to do now, except he can't create enough government jobs to bring the unemployment down, because we are a much larger country now. I guess eventually he'll get us into WWIII, and send the unemployed off to die in a war? That's what FDR did!

Hey Dixie, 23.6% unemployed when FDR took office. BUT, you said: 'Keep in mind, the "Great Depression" did not become known as that until afterward. During the Great Depression, it was merely a depression, we had been through several over the years.'


Strike one.


'The Debt-to-GDP ratio went through the roof! This caused the depression to linger for another 7 years!'

You will be interested to hear what Dr. Martin Feldstein has to say about FDR's fiscal policies. For those of you not familiar with him, Dr. Feldstein is an old-school (pre-Reagan) conservative Republican. He's a genuine Republican, one who really believes in a small federal government that runs a balanced budget. When Alan Greenspan retired from the Federal Reserve Board many folks expected President Bush would appoint Dr. Feldstein as the new chairman.

CNBC's Steve Liesman interviewed Dr. Feldstein at the American Economic Association (AEA) annual meeting in San Francisco on Friday Jan 2, 2009. In the interview at 2:47 Liesman comments that some folks claim that "it [fiscal stimulus] really hasn't worked in the past. There are people who go back to the 1930's and say FDR spent for a full decade and it was only World War II that got us out of it."

Dr. Feldstein's reply is priceless: "He [FDR] didn't really spend very much. He did a variety of things, regulating wages, regulating prices. He did small spending programs but I don't think it ever got to be more than an extra roughly 1% of GDP, in today's terms that would be under $200 billion."

Think about this: Feldstein states that FDR's fiscal stimulus (excluding World War II related programs) duing the period 1932-1941 totaled less than $200 billion in today's dollars. President Bush's fiscal stimulus package passed in the first quarter of 2008 was $170 billion.

At this year's AEA annual meeting Dr. Feldstein is chairing a panel on the appropriate fiscal stimulus to address, in Dr. Feldstein's words, "an economic downturn that is worse than anything I've seen in the post-war period." When a conservative Republican economist chairs a program on fiscal stimulus and personnally believes that more than 50% of that stimulus should be direct government spending then you know that direct government spending as fiscal policy is both desirable and effective.

The next time this bogus meme (economists claim that FDR's fiscal policy prolonged the Great Depression) arises the only appropriate response is belly-busting derisive laughter. Then mention this interview. 'Nuff said.

http://www.cnbc.com//id/28470517


Strike two.


'I guess eventually he'll get us into WWIII, and send the unemployed off to die in a war? That's what FDR did!'

As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history.

Strike three...you're OUT!


Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

None of your "strikes" count because you are being completely disingenuous with your application of percentages and numbers. We were in a deep depression, of course the massive 120% of GDP government spending raised those dismal numbers and percentages, no one claimed they didn't, you goofy moron! Creating temporary government jobs did not stimulate the economy to any real degree, which is why we began to slip back into the depression in 37/38. The same thing will ultimately happen this go-around as well, because the private sector economic stimulation isn't happening. AND there are no massive number of government jobs being created as a percentage of the workforce, because we simply don't have that many jobs!

I know that Liberal Socialist fucktards have prissed around lauding FDR for years and years, and it's very difficult to interject any sort of intellectual evaluation into the shrill rhetoric and revisionism of history, but the man created massive Federal debts, and many of those debt-creating programs are still with us today! We can't get rid of them, every time someone suggests it, they are hooted down by you Socialists who tell us how GREAT FDR was, he SAVED America! ...WWII saved America! FDR nearly bankrupted America, trying the Socialist Pinhead Keynesian bullshit that you people are still stuck on and won't get off!

 

[Bfgrn]

None of your "strikes" count because you are being completely disingenuous with your application of percentages and numbers. We were in a deep depression, of course the massive 120% of GDP government spending raised those dismal numbers and percentages, no one claimed they didn't, you goofy moron! Creating temporary government jobs did not stimulate the economy to any real degree, which is why we began to slip back into the depression in 37/38. The same thing will ultimately happen this go-around as well, because the private sector economic stimulation isn't happening. AND there are no massive number of government jobs being created as a percentage of the workforce, because we simply don't have that many jobs!

I know that Liberal Socialist fucktards have prissed around lauding FDR for years and years, and it's very difficult to interject any sort of intellectual evaluation into the shrill rhetoric and revisionism of history, but the man created massive Federal debts, and many of those debt-creating programs are still with us today! We can't get rid of them, every time someone suggests it, they are hooted down by you Socialists who tell us how GREAT FDR was, he SAVED America! ...WWII saved America! FDR nearly bankrupted America, trying the Socialist Pinhead Keynesian bullshit that you people are still stuck on and won't get off!

You see Dixie, we're back to the premise of this thread and you are becoming the poster boy for what conservatism has become. You so called conservatives are the biggest fucking danger to this country! Why do I say that? Because you authoritarians NEVER have a single penny of HUMAN capital in your draconian set of punishments for the citizens of this nation. You talk about 'economy' and eviscerate how that economy impacts PEOPLE.

Creating temporary government jobs provided millions of men and women an earned wage and self-respect. It allowed fathers and mothers the ability to feed their children and keep a roof over their heads, precisely the job of government in times of great economic turmoil.

And that, really, is where the whole project of New Deal revisionism breaks down.

The bottom line conservative position on the New Deal is that, theoretically speaking, the economy would have returned to "normal" more quickly if FDR had refrained from interfering with the workings of the free market through his vast array of interventionist programs. Sadly for them, we never got a chance to find out, because the situation in 1933, when Roosevelt took office, demanded government action. Twenty-five percent of the nation was unemployed. Human suffering was immense. If the market had been left to work its problems out all by itself, further suffering in the near term would have been unimaginable. And not just unimaginable -- but also politically unacceptable.

If the New Deal actually extended the Great Depression, we might wonder, why was Roosevelt reelected three times?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You see Dixie, we're back to the premise of this thread and you are becoming the poster boy for what conservatism has become. You so called conservatives are the biggest fucking danger to this country! Why do I say that? Because you authoritarians NEVER have a single penny of HUMAN capital in your draconian set of punishments for the citizens of this nation. You talk about 'economy' and eviscerate how that economy impacts PEOPLE.

Creating temporary government jobs provided millions of men and women an earned wage and self-respect. It allowed fathers and mothers the ability to feed their children and keep a roof over their heads, precisely the job of government in times of great economic turmoil.

And that, really, is where the whole project of New Deal revisionism breaks down.

The bottom line conservative position on the New Deal is that, theoretically speaking, the economy would have returned to "normal" more quickly if FDR had refrained from interfering with the workings of the free market through his vast array of interventionist programs. Sadly for them, we never got a chance to find out, because the situation in 1933, when Roosevelt took office, demanded government action. Twenty-five percent of the nation was unemployed. Human suffering was immense. If the market had been left to work its problems out all by itself, further suffering in the near term would have been unimaginable. And not just unimaginable -- but also politically unacceptable.

If the New Deal actually extended the Great Depression, we might wonder, why was Roosevelt reelected three times?

You know, I've listened to you pinheads bash Republicans and rail against conservatives for weeks, months, and years, here at this forum and others. Taichung Pinhead started a thread to rail on the right for outsourcing jobs, you're here criticizing the right for being heartless bastards who just want people to suffer and die. But here is the interesting thing about all this overblown rhetoric from you fuckwits... Aside from a couple of sporadic periods within the past 15 years, the United States Congress has been controlled entirely by the Democrat Party. Even when Republicans had control, they lacked enough power to prevent filibusters and implement anything they wanted to implement. Everything that has been passed in Congress by Republicans over the past 100 years, has had considerable bipartisan support. Most of what has been passed was Democrat solutions, Democrat ideas, Democrat initiatives, Democrat objectives, and Democrat policy. For the past 70 years, we've poured trillions of dollars into social programs to supposedly lift those in poverty out of it, and make their lives better, and to this day, we still have the same percentage of people living in poverty. We've adopted minimum wages, and raised them routinely, at the behest of Democrats, who whined and moaned and bitched and complained until we did. We've been brow-beaten into adopting hundreds of new 'entitlement' programs to help this group or that group, and yet... here you are, still complaining that Republicans are preventing us from helping people!

With ALL the political power at your disposal, the entire treasury of the country and all the credit we could muster, you've been given everything you've ever asked for and more, repeatedly, over and over, for years and decades, and still... here you are, wanting people to believe that hasn't happened, and Republicans are standing in your way to help people make a better life. Republicans who have had absolutely NO power to stop the massive spending programs of FDR, Johnson, or Obama! Even when Republicans briefly gained control of Congress, the Democrats obfuscated, obstructed, kicked and screamed at every idea the right tried to advance, stating that our government was designed to give the minority the voice to object. Nothing that has been implemented into law from Republicans, hasn't had support of Democrats as well. Yet, from your perspective, all our problems, all our woes, all the misery the people are feeling, are solely the fault of Republicans who've stood in your way!

I don't really know what you want. Maybe you'd like to completely abolish the Republican party and let Democrats run a single-party dictatorship, but then, that's essentially what they've done the past century anyway. You'd still find some way to blame the abolished Republicans for the problems, even if we hunted them all down and sent them to gas chambers. It doesn't seem to dawn on you, the problem might not be the Republicans or Conservatism. It might actually be a century of liberal socialism, and runaway spending/taxation....nooo... let's not dare consider that! :eek3:

 

[apple0154]

Much wiser than its owner, that's for sure! He's obviously a Fat Cat Republican!

Wrong guess. She's a true, blue Democrat. For example, when I have lunch and watch the Daily Show, recorded the previous night, she's there watching and sharing my lunch.

Watching Jon Stewart. Sharing. You can't mistake those actions for that of a Republican.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wrong guess. She's a true, blue Democrat. For example, when I have lunch and watch the Daily Show, recorded the previous night, she's there watching and sharing my lunch.

Watching Jon Stewart. Sharing. You can't mistake those actions for that of a Republican.

I watch Jon Stewart and share! ZOMG.... I'm a Democrat!! :eek3: