Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Liberal Rebuts Conservatism

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


AHH, My Friend...

Your assessment is exactly what I was looking for from you, I just wanted you to state it yourself...


Individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for nearly 80 percent of federal revenue


Now, based on your own statements...

Why do you liberals want to raise taxes and put Small Business, (Payroll Taxes) out of business?

Why do libs want to place a heavier tax burden on income earners?

You say all that you want to do is tax the rich, but you already are... Remember the figures above in reference to what income group pays the bulk of the taxes....

Taking into account that poor people pay no tax at all, (getting it all back at the end of the year does not qualify as paying taxes) you are already taxing the rich and middle income, me, into oblivion..

Why would you want to raise taxes when it is a proven fact it destroys the economy, raises unemployment and hobbles investors?

So, looking at your own admissions, could you enlighten us...

Thanks

Semper




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

posted by semperfortis
Why do you liberals want to raise taxes and put Small Business, (Payroll Taxes) out of business?


1) We want to pay as we go. We have no right to put today's expenses off to successive generations.
2) I would not concede raising taxes would put any business out. As long as the playing field is level, taxes PER SE ought not to be the decisive factor in profitability or survivability.
3) The Payroll Tax is 7.65% on wages paid up to $80,000. The tax has been at that level for 20-30 years.


Why do libs want to place a heavier tax burden on income earners? You say all that you want to do is tax the rich, Why would you want to raise taxes when it is a proven fact it destroys the economy, raises unemployment and hobbles investors? So, could you enlighten us... Thanks Semper


1) As you noted Semper, 80% of revenue comes from individual taxes and if you need $3 t. to balance the $3 t. expenditures, then you will have to get 80% of it from income taxes.
2) We have had a progressive tax system longer than anybody here can remember. Progressive means the more you make, the more you pay. I want to see a MORE progressive rate schedule.
3) It is not a “proven fact” that taxes destroy ANY economy, nor increase unemployment nor hobble investors. This is AEI and Cato talk.

[edit on 4/11/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
You are not referencing the National Debt when referring to this are you?


We want to pay as we go. We have no right to put today's expenses off to successive generations.


While I don't usually get involved in discussions over the National Debt because most do not even come close to comprehending all of the nuances involved, Knowing you I expect you to be able to stay with me on that issue.

The knee jerk reactions most are prone to in regards to the National Debt, are of course completely false.


National debt was 117.5, 121.7 and 110.3 percent of GDP in 1945, 1946 and 1947. This was right after World War Two when the US spent a fortune to rebuild Europe and Japan after we defeated both in the war while eliminating Hitler.

Today the national debt as a percentage of GDP is estimated to be 66.1%, nearly half what it was when we were rebuilding Europe and Japan much like we are attempting to do today in Iraq.

Nat Debt

Of course anyone that understands economics, understands the National Debt is NOT out of control anymore than the price of eggs and milk.


taxes PER SE ought not to be the decisive factor in profitability or survivability.


Perhaps not in the Lib "perfect little world"; but tell that to a struggling business man that you are demanding pay more to the Government.


It is not a “proven fact” that taxes destroy ANY economy, nor increase unemployment nor hobble investors.


Of course you realize that most noted economists disagree with you, as do I?

It is a fact, as shown in previous links.

I have a Question for you Don, if you don't mind.

1. Why don't Liberals concentrate as much energy on fighting the excessive spending and fraud in government spending, as they do in raising taxes?

Currently there is estimated to be well over 50% fraud in the current welfare system.
Government spending is out of control in regards to excessive and unnecessary programs being funded everyday.

2. Regardless of the tax base, is it not true if that was brought even partially under control, raising taxes would not even be an issue?

Ok, sorry that was two questions..


Semper



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


National debt was 117.5, 121.7 and 110.3 percent of GDP in 1945, 1946 and 1947. This was right after World War Two when the US spent a fortune to rebuild Europe and Japan after we defeated both in the war while eliminating Hitler. Today the national debt as a percentage of GDP is estimated to be 66.1%, nearly half what it was when we were rebuilding Europe and Japan much like we are attempting to do today in Iraq. investment.suite101.com...


Debt is Good? Forget Ben Franklin's "a penny saved is a penny earned." Hence MORE debt is MORE good? I guess that argument ends when we say to be ALL debt is BEST? Using the lowest number furnished above the recommended debt is $16.45 t. ($14 t. GDP) That would equal $1 t. a year in interest. Uh oh, I see a huge tax increase in the offing! Q. Is this new economic theory from George Orwell’s 1984?

World War Two was an anomaly. Then is not now.

For the only time in American history, our national survival was at stake. “No cost would be too great to pay, no burden would be too heavy to carry.” As a fact, we lost about 400,000 KIA during that war. Out of a population of 130 million. Throughout the war 16 million men wore the uniform and as many as 13 million were in uniform at the close of the war, VJ-Day, September, 1945. By VJ Day we had already discharged 3 million men! 12% of our population had been in uniform! And yes, we had 45,000 MIA but we did not CRY-BABY about it. We took our lumps and moved on. “Closure” had not yet been invented. You had to do your own closing. Aside: It could be argued that the 1775-1783 period and 1861-1865 period also threatened national survival but I see those 2 events as significantly different. In neither case would we have been ruled by foreign masters. Nor would we have had death camps and slave labor - for whites. End

Savings reached levels not before and never since reached. As a elementary school child I took a nickel to school each Friday and bought a Savings Stamp, stuck it in my booklet, and when it was filled, I tuned it in for a $25 war bond. Outdoor advertising urged “Save 10% to Defeat the Axis!” Companies that achieved 100% enrollment in a “Bond a Month” plan were given an Army-Navy ‘E’ award and and 'E' flag to fly. ‘E’ stood for Excellence. Non-participating workers were lectured occasionally by traveling Treasury agents. Double features were the order of the day at movie theaters. Usually one A movie was followed by a B movie. At intermission, the lights go on and the PA announced "War bonds are for sale in the lobby!"

The local War Labor Board regulated where persons worked. If you were needed in Plant A but worked at Plant B, then you could be reassigned to Plant A. To change jobs you have to have permission of the War Labor Board. Workers were given a half day off with pay for each pint of blood they donated to the Red Cross. Workers (donors) vied for the Gallon Club awards and lapel pins. Shoes, sugar, cooking oil, coffee, chocolate, leather goods, were rationed. Red meat was rationed. Gasoline, motor oil and tires were rationed. The local Ration Board issued the necessary coupon books and food tokens. If for some reason you needed more, you applied to the Board which would review your application.

A national speed limit of 35 mph was set. To get extra gasoline to drive to and from work you had to share rides with fellow workers. To make sure you did not “tell a lie” the riders had to sign a form and the employer had to verify it. You could then turn in your ‘A’ sticker - 3 gallons a month - and receive a ‘C’ sticker - a variable amount based on miles driven and your cars rated mpg. Doctors made house calls then, and police and fire cars got a ‘B’ sticker and a gasoline allotment based on prior usage.

Rents were fixed. The OPA - Office of Price Administration - set the price for all rationed goods. There were no new houses built between 1942 and late 1943. You could not move without an occupancy permit from the OPA, which included the amount of rent to be paid the landlord or owner. Profiteering was a crime. There was an EXCESS PROFITS tax on corporations. That alone makes WW2 an anomaly. We need that law again!

1943 was the turning year of the War.
The Russians had destroyed the Germans at Stalingrad. They had held on to Leningrad for 900 days. We had invaded Italy. The war in the Pacific had turned around. Our victory in the Battle of Guadalcanal made Australia safe. The Battle of Midway was the decisive naval engagement. Our ship construction industry was outperforming our grandest expectations. Thanks in part to Henry J. Kaiser. It was time to resume new home construction because we KNEW then we would win the war! Winston Churchill is said to have jumped for joy when he heard the news about the December 7 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. “We have won the war” he is said to have exclaimed.

America was SERIOUS about waging a war of survival. THEN. War today is a political ploy.

Correlation - concurrent - is not causation - the result of.
Simultaneous, yes, but that does not mean the one caused the other. Circumstances were so much different in a million little and some big ways that it is not legitimate (not honest) to compare the DEBT incurred in WW2 with the federal debt incurred afterwards.

I have said a lot to say this: There is no correlation between national debt in the 1940s era and national debt incurred since the advent of Reaganism in 1980. None.


A Personal Note.
I was one of 8 males in my generation. I was too young to go to war. One of my aunts had 4 sons. One was in the Navy at Pensacola. Another was a Navy Sea Bee - Construction Battalion - combat engineers - and was in the Pacific. Her 3rd son served in France. Her 4th son was in Army basic training when the War ended. VJ-Day. Another aunt’s only son was in the submarine service and he died, him being the only casualty of the War in my family. Another aunt’s son won the Purple Heart and Bronze Star in the Battle of the Ardennes - a/k/a “Battle of the Bulge.” My last cousin to serve in the War achieved the family’s highest rank - E7 - Master Sergeant. He was also the only one who was a conscientious objector. Back then they stamped your personnel file with 1 inch tall bold black letters “C O.” Lest anyone forget. Then, to further show our LOVE for CO’s, they were almost 100% assigned to be medical corpsmen. Since they did not believe in killing, we put them on the front line but kept them unarmed! God Bless America. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

I have called World War 2 the "War we all loved." Yes of course, excluding those who died or were maimed and their families and friends. But for the rest of us, it was an experience that will never be repeated. I'm grateful to have lived then. It was truly the BEST of times, the WORST of times. Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.

[edit on 4/12/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 



For the only time in American history, our national survival was at stake.


AH!!!!

But your analogy holds no water my good and valued friend...

It was NOT the war that gave us that debt ratio, it was the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. Very clearly indicated in the link I do believe.

So the comparison is exactly appropriate.

Semper



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


It was NOT the war that gave us that debt ratio, it was the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. Very clearly indicated in the link I do believe.


But see this:

The Marshall Plan. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in July 1947. During that period some USD 13 billion in economic and technical assistance were given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. The United States benefitted from the Marshall plan, as aid-receiving countries were required to open their markets to US companies.

Japan too, had been badly damaged by the war. However, the American people and Congress were far less sympathetic towards the Japanese . . Thus no grand reconstruction plan was ever created, and the Japanese economic recovery before 1950 was slow. The Korean War played a role in the early economic growth in Japan. It began in 1950 and Japan became the main staging ground for the United Nations war effort, and a crucial supplier of material. Japan’s recovery is also used as a counter-example, since it experienced rapid growth without any aid whatsoever. Its recovery is attributed to traditional economic stimuli, such as increases in investment, fueled by a high savings rate . . “ en.wikipedia.org...


From this report it looks like the links have mis-fired!



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Agreeing to disagree is almost never a bad thing my valued Liberal Friend...

I feel we have beaten this horse to death, but I look forward to our next meeting on the "field of battle" so to speak...

By the way, I'm in Jax a couple times a year, I'll have to let you know next time and I'll buy the first one....

Semper

[edit on 4/12/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
In the core of liberalism there nestles the ugly, hidden truth of coercion.

You must coerce a man into giving you money, with the implicit threat of violence (via the police, judiciary, prison system) for non-payment of tax. This is nothing short of armed robbery. If you weren't an elected government, he would shoot you the moment you demanded money from him (had you not taken away their guns, that is).

You must force a man to give you the tithe in order that you may help someone else who may or may not be worthy of aid. You divest him of his hard earned money to subsidize the parasitic, worthless existence of a lazy non-worker.

You must force him to act a certain way, do certain things and think a certain way because it is in the interests of your percieved "greater good".

And yet, he has no inclination to do these things. If it comes down to it, liberalism is an ideology of coercion and constraint whereas conservatism allows personal growth. Therein lies the difference- that liberalism sets the bar of progression at the slowest citizens pace, while conservatism allows the flourishing of genii, entrepreneurs and hard workers.

Liberalism is born of naivety. It is born good intentions without the mental foresight to comprehend the actions that you advocate. I have to say, I dont hate liberals by any means. But I despise the policies of liberalism, because they seek to infringe my natural rights. They breech the concepts of personal freedom, liberty of thought and action and most of all they impinge upon my right to the pursuit of happiness.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


In the core of liberalism there nestles the ugly, hidden truth of coercion.


And do not all forms of governance known to man not include coercion? Scratch the opening premise as false if not misleading or incomplete.


You must force a man to give you the tithe in order that you may help someone else who may or may not be worthy of aid.


This mostly depends on the kind of world YOU want to live in. Yes, we have tried dog eat dog but found that wanting. It seems much better to live more like puppies.


If it comes down to it, liberalism is an ideology of coercion and constraint whereas conservatism allows personal growth. Therein lies the difference- that liberalism sets the bar of progression at the slowest citizens pace, while conservatism allows the flourishing of genii, entrepreneurs and hard workers.


Not everyone will win a gold medal in the Beijing Olympics. Someone will finish last. Oddly enough, NON winners outnumber winners by a million to one in most of life yet it fascinates me how many non-winners urge the cause of winners. Hmm? Don’t they teach self-interest in school anymore? Or is it adulation nowadays?


I have to say, I don’t hate liberals by any means. But I despise the policies of liberalism, because they seek to infringe my natural rights. They breech the concepts of personal freedom, liberty of thought and action and most of all they impinge upon my right to the pursuit of happiness.


Like Christians, LOVE the sinner, HATE the sin. A very lofty goal but all too frequently something goes awry and it sometimes look as if they got it backwards. Despite their urgent protests. Maybe you resent being forced to buy workers’ compensation insurance for your employees, but I can’t feel for you. I call that irresponsible even if you label it interference. I hate to have to repeat history.

[edit on 4/15/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Indeed, I'm from the Smith/ Friedman/ Hayek/ Rand school of thought haha.

All forms of government do espouse coercion, but none to the extent of liberalism. I stand for a limited government, with non-interference as a principle. Why? Because I dont think it is the duty of some to support the lives of others.

You say we have tried dog eat dog... thats precisely what I am against. I want to see a scenario of dog co-exist with dog. At the moment, about 60% of my income is eaten by the other dogs via taxation.

I am all for having a safety net to help a person who is down on luck, but that by no means entails provisioning from my plate to his if he continues not to work. Bare minimal safety net, not a ruddy hammock.

Its strange that you admit that your liberal thoughts are a product of self-interest. Most liberals will claim to be acting for the greater good, and in the interests of "fairness".
I have no inclination to take another man's property. I never have done, and I never intend to. How selfish of me to expect the same courtesy in return!

It is the imposition upon my life that I thoroughly resent. Even if we do not consider the pragmatics of the situation (which also agree with conservatism), I still believe that a more libertarian approach is more ethical and moral.

2 Socratic questions, if you wouldnt mind:

1. Do tell me sir, why must I subsidize the livelyhood of another man?
and
2. What gives anyone else the right to forcibly steal money from me to distribute it amongst others?
(a word of forewarning, I shan't accept "democracy" as an answer! The imposition of the will of 51% on 49% of the population strikes me as an odious concept)



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Would one of you nice Conservatives in this thread please explain how you would propose to pay for all of the pleasantries of our modern American Society? i.e.: roads, sewers, public education, 911, police, fire, etc. Not to mention the cost of administrating society - government? It ain't free people and and I get sick of Conservatives who latch onto "income redistribution" arguments.

While I admit that government spending is out of control and there is certainly no end to costs associated with freedom, nevertheless, it has to be paid for. I'll also remind you that a Conservative president is largely responsible for our current national debt. Unfortunately I voted for that idiot twice.

Shouldn't America aspire to something great? Shouldn't a basic quality of life for our citizenry be somethng we can be proud of? Don't all of our citizens rate good educational opportunities and decent healthcare? Or is that only for the well-heeled and financially secure among us? What about future generations, don't they deserve some sort of public investment?

Make no mistake, I am arguing from a position of opportunity, not of want. I am very blessed. But am I more deserving than my fellow citizens? I think not. It seems that as people move up along the ladder to success, they always want to kick the person on the next wrung down.


P.S. . The answer is Fair Tax!

[edit on 15/4/08 by kosmicjack]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I stand for a limited government, with non-interference as a principle. Why? Because I don’t think it is the duty of some to support the lives of others.

Its strange that you admit that your liberal thoughts are a product of self-interest. Most liberals will claim to be acting for the greater good, and in the interests of "fairness."


As I grow older I have a lower threshold for violence and misery even in others not to mention myself. Recent research shows I may nave more of the hormone oxytocin than others. It makes you feel empathy.

My quarrel with any small government philosophy is we don’t live in a small world. What worked well in the 19th century will not cut it in Century 21. Most people who advocate small or smaller government also advocate less taxation. I’m not sure if they would really care so much about the size of government if it was free. I feel they are really concerned only about the size of their tax bill. I am not making a value judgment, each POV is equally valid for that person. (Social Einsteinianism.) Whether he can persuade others to his POV is a different matter.

I’m not biting on the “support others” offer nor on the “fairness” issue. It takes a half dozen words to raise the issue but hundreds to explain it adequately and appropriately. I will say unless one is lost on a desert island, he must accept “interference” from others.


I still believe that a more libertarian approach is more ethical and moral.


You’ll settle for “more” libertarian approach. It’s only “more” ethical and moral? Do I detect some wavering in your cause, some equivocating here? The comparative versus the superlative!


2 Socratic questions, if you wouldn’t mind:

1. Do tell me sir, why must I subsidize the livelihood of another man?
and
2. What gives anyone else the right to forcibly steal money from me to distribute it amongst others?


1) Individually, you must not. Collectively, you must. Why? Because of the compulsion you have objected to earlier and the democratic process you rejected a priori.

2) You’ve put a load on this question that I do not believe either Socrates or Plato would have put. I get your drift, I think. I’d say, it’s a trade off you (and I) have implicitly made with others. It’s the social bargain. Recall the old Neanderthal bones showing an adult broke his femur but lived to see it heal? He could not have done that alone. And as they say, here we are today!



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Yes, you do detect some waivering in my ideas! I've not yet made up my mind about whether or not a libertarian system is pragmatically applicable or whether it would cause a degradation of civilization.

I think where we differ in fundamental terms is that you believe in viewing the issues from a broader, social perspective of all humans being a society; whereas I think that we are fundamentally individualistic in nature.

I do care about others, I would just prefer to have the freedom to allocate my beneficence to those who I deem worthy rather than have a stake of my earnings earmarked for theft and subsequent distribution. In that way, I do believe in the laissez faire school of though in that I value charity above mandatory taxes.

Furthermore to expound upon the Neanderthal example, he would undoubtedly have been cared for by his family or friends or by an act of charity. Analogous to the mandated social welfare programs of modern governments would be if other neanderthals got sticks and forced one or two neanderthals to give the wounded one their food.


reply to Kosmicjack

Kosmic I oppose income tax only. Roads may be upkept by road and vehicle taxation; public sanitation may be upkept by local taxation schemes or opt-in schemes at the local level; public education by business backed schools or by tuition fees. The issue of public sanitation and environmental upkeep can additionally be tackled using Pigovian taxation systems, which penalise polluters more heavily.

The government should not technically cost much to run. The rampant salaries for congressmen and senators are unnecessary. If they want to serve their country, they ought to do it for free. I know I would. If they need to support a family, the administration could offer a living stipend but certainly there is no need for a salary.

The ideal governmental scenario in fiscal terms would be one without any taxation, but with governmental control of major raw materials assets such as crude oil. The entire US administration ought to be funded by crude oil and other resources, which should be state run and the profits used to fund these social endevours. Its an odd suggestion from a right-winger like me, but I fail to see why the oil companies should have control of the oilfields when they could be state controlled and the ensuing profits could negate the tax burden.



[edit on 15-4-2008 by 44soulslayer]

[edit on 15-4-2008 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


With such rational ideas as those, I might have to agree with much of what you said!

With one exception, public officals working for free would tend to encourage only the wealthy to serve or bribery. People have to make a living - but yes government need not be so big and complicated as to require millions of full-time employees.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


While I admit that government spending is out of control and there is certainly no end to costs associated with freedom, nevertheless, it has to be paid for. I'll also remind you that a Conservative president is largely responsible for our current national debt. Make no mistake, I am arguing from a position of opportunity, not of want. I am very blessed.

P.S. . The answer is Fair Tax!


The FAIR Tax begins with DECEPTION.
It is represented as a 23% sales tax. (The old 17% FLAT Tax of the 1980s re-named). The tax is actually 30 cents added to each $1 bringing the total cost of the item to $1.30. Where I went to school that is a 30% tax. Whoa Up! To make the FAIR tax more appealing, some brainy trickster hit on altering the method of calculation. OK, take a $1 item, you pay $1.30 for it. Ordinary people would say that was a 30% sales tax.

Watch the peanut. The FAIR Tax advocates take the total price - $1.30 - and divide that into 30 cents - the amount of the tax - and VIOLA! the dividend is 23%. Or, by slight of hand, how a 30% sales tax can be advertised as a 23% FAIR Tax. Jeez.

Advocates who have misrepresented the AMOUNT of tax, have concocted a scheme to FATTEN the R&Fs beyond their wildest dreams. Rich and Famous. Here’s the LIST of taxes to be abolished: 1) The current Federal Personal income tax is over. That saves the high income people from paying the 35% rate on income over $200,000. It RAISES the tax paid by the POOR on incomes up to $35,000, which is currently taxed at 25% to the NEW 30% Fair Tax rate misrepresented as 23%! Q. Was the number juggling done on purpose to SNAFU the unsuspecting Poor Guy?

The 2) Alternate Minimum Tax is gone. 3) Corporate income taxes are gone. No longer will ExxonMobil - world's highest earner - pay ONE RED CENT. Sweet Jesus! Died and gone straight to Heaven! 4) Capital gains tax on the R&Fs is over. It was already down to 10%. Poor people do not have capital gains. They have capital losses. 5) Social Security is abolished. 6) Medicare is history. Now you will either have kind children to support you until you die or you will get a first hand taste of EUTHANASIA. And that bane of the rich, 7) GIFT and 8) ESTATE taxes are OUT. This anti-tax move goes far to build economic oligarchies. Just what we need.

And ALL current Federal revenue - about $2.9 t. a year, will be replaced by ONE so-called FAIR tax? Fair to the Rich and Famous but terribly UNFAIR to the Poor and Poorer.

The FAIR Tax or FLAT Tax by a new name, is DOA! Dead on Arrival in Congress.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Agreed, which is why if they request it I think the state could pay for the education of their children, their grocery budget etc.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Damn it! That's the kind of post that makes me want to run screaming away from my recent left-leaning ways.

I view it as the same type of triangulating tactics I was referring too.

*Kosmic puts fingers in ears and refuses to listen to any more anti-Fair Tax propaganda*



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 



Damn it! That's the kind of post that makes me want to run screaming away from my recent left-leaning ways.
*Kosmic puts fingers in ears and refuses to listen to any more anti-Fair Tax propaganda*


Gee Whiz, Mr kosmicjack, I’m sorry! I sure didn’t mean to upset you. Here, take this Bromo-Seltzer. It’ll make you feel better.
Don W





[edit on 4/15/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I'm composed now!


This is NAOLP.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I will also give you a list of liberals:

Washington
Jefferson
Franklin
Payne
Hamilton
Most of the founding fathers of this country!

Liberalism is why you have the freedoms you enjoy today. Liberalism was the mindset that rebelled from England.

Conservatives never would have done this.









 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join