Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Liberal Rebuts Conservatism

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


As the "Labels" did not exist then, you really don't mind if I COMPLETELY disagree with you do you?

I sure hope not...

They were all as Liberal as Rush and Hannity...

Semper




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Rampant ignorance. Permit me to deny it.

"Liberalism" is a philosophy of big government, state control and allocation of resources. Heavy taxation, heavy social engineering programs etc.

ALL those on your list are libertarians. Bar none, all of them are libertarians.
They believe in the same social freedoms that liberalism entails, but with none of the economic control.

True freedom is called libertarianism.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 

I’ll debate this any day. It wouldn’t be much of a discussion if we all agreed now would it.



Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Rampant ignorance. Permit me to deny it.

"Liberalism" is a philosophy of big government, state control and allocation of resources. Heavy taxation, heavy social engineering programs etc.

Sounds like what we have now, and conservatives have ruled the Whitehouse for 20 out of the last 28 years. We have heavy taxation even with Bush’s tax cuts. We have heavy Corporate engineering programs


ALL those on your list are libertarians. Bar none, all of them are libertarians.
They believe in the same social freedoms that liberalism entails, but with none of the economic control.

True freedom is called libertarianism.


I’m not going to argue about this.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The Age of Enlightenment.

In the 1700’s people started to have a change in the way they looked at the world. Most people around the Western World were ruled by Monarchies and or with the Church, these groups had absolute power, and control over the common man. There was no such thing as personal freedom or liberty, the common man lived to service there authoritarian masters. Human kind for the most part lived a very unhappy life, there leaders ruled by whatever whim they had.

People started to think in a different way, they questioned the way they lived, they questioned the status quo, and they even started to question what was right or wrong. They saw the need to move away from tyrannical type government away from superstition and tradition that nobility needed to stay in power, they proposed a new direction to take, and that direction was of Reason.

This way of thinking inspired the American, French and other successful revolutions against the powers that be, and gave way to new rights and freedoms for the common people that before did not exist.
The Age of Enlightenment

Liberalism
This next part I’m going to quote from the source because this is exactly how I view Liberalism or how it should be, but Both Liberalism and Conservatism can be hijacked by special interests:


Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.
Liberalism


These are the beliefs that spurred our revolt from England and the King, these are the mindset that gave us liberty or death, and these are why we have rights and personal freedom today.
The Goals of our founding fathers where to grant us the Right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To create a small central government by the people for the people, a government that Feared the people, not the other way around. A government that Served the people and not special interests groups based on race, religion or industry.
Now let us compare what I have shown you to Conservatives.


Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.
Conservatism


Now what group would rebel against there king or fearless leader? What group would face fear, the fear of the unknown or the fear of change?
Now at this point I could go on and on by bringing up the religious conservative, but I’m not going there……Yet.

I do want you all to notice this part of the quote above “to protect from loss or harm” FEAR, it’s what is driving this country into the ground, Conservatives today are using Fear to centralize political power in Washington and the high court, and they are using Fear to keep up our wars with the hope of more wars, and to take away personal liberties and freedoms.

Are you really willing to give up your freedoms for security, do you really have that much fear in your heart?

I find it interesting that Conservatives claim they are the patriotic ones, when there ideology did nothing to free us from tyranny, oh my bad, they only question ones patriotic stance when one questions them, hmmm so much for free speech.

And BTW our founding fathers would be disgusted how we have turned out.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


I agree with you.

However what I am railing against is the modern political appelation of "liberal", which is a position expounded by the Democratic party.

Theres no doubting the power of classical liberalism- ie libertarianism.

Now as to the debate versus libertarianism and conservatism... well thats a difficult kettle of fish. Had conservatism been enacted after the writing of the constitution, and the ideals upheld against the corroding tides of liberalism, you would still have true freedom today.

There are things worth conserving, the foremost of which is liberty. So while libertarianism may be the aspect you agree with, we also need conservatism to protect and carefully reform the institutions of liberty and freedom.

As I said in one of Semper's threads about political appelations, it is much better to use a 3d grid system of economic freedom vs social freedom. Any philosophy that scores high on both axes is fine by me.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


I agree with you.

However what I am railing against is the modern political appelation of "liberal", which is a position expounded by the Democratic party.


I'm not sure I agree here, I don't view universal healthcare as bad, and as for raising taxes for it, well the way I see it, if we stopped spending our money in foreign countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Columbia and fighting aids in Africa and things like this, we could very easily afford it without any new taxes. Is the thought of the US actually spending our tax money on ourselves really that bad, or is it better we give $17 million a day to Israel?


Theres no doubting the power of classical liberalism- ie libertarianism.

Agreed


Now as to the debate versus libertarianism and conservatism... well thats a difficult kettle of fish. Had conservatism been enacted after the writing of the constitution, and the ideals upheld against the corroding tides of liberalism, you would still have true freedom today.


The biggest problem I have with Conservatism today is the religious right, they are not about freedoms at all unless you agree with there ideology and I don't.


There are things worth conserving, the foremost of which is liberty. So while libertarianism may be the aspect you agree with, we also need conservatism to protect and carefully reform the institutions of liberty and freedom.


May be off topic but I have a hard time getting my head around Liberal = Communism. Communism doesn't care or give personal freedoms, this reminds me or the far religious right, sure your free as long as you don't question anything and agree completely with us.


As I said in one of Semper's threads about political appelations, it is much better to use a 3d grid system of economic freedom vs social freedom. Any philosophy that scores high on both axes is fine by me.




Seems to me all ideologies have been hijacked by religious or economic pressures. We will never have the perfect government, both groups are so against each other, but I do see us moving in a more Liberal trend for the next decade or so, Obama might do for the Liberal what Reagan did for the Conservative. btw I'm not a Obama supporter

I'm a happy moderate
I don't agree with gun control if a company can make it I should be able to buy it.
I don't care if gays marry, it's not a Threat to me.
I'm very Conservative when it comes to relationships
I'm Liberal when it comes to personal freedoms and liberty.
I'm a Liberal in that there are too many people in prison for non violent offenses.
We should always maintain a Great Defense, but instead we now have a broken offense.


Now what groups supports a MUCH Smaller Government??



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Ah we do differ slightly.

I oppose universal state run healthcare. Trust me, you havent seen the true face of universal healthcare until youve seen the NHS system we have over here in the UK.

Im not sure what you mean by too many people imprisoned for non-violent offences. I dont believe in the imprisonment of drug users, but what about non-violent burglars or robbers?

I believe that any universal function provided by the state must be funded through an opt-in system. The military may be the only exception, as we need to defend ourselves against all agressors.

What I oppose in both the modern Democrat agenda is that they believe the state has all the answers, and must care for each man and woman. I believe it is a personal responsibility to look after youself and your family in all facets from provision of food to safety (firearms). I dislike their line on taxation too... at most a nominal 7-10% tax on certain things would be appropriate. Income tax is never appropriate.

What I oppose in the modern Republican party is the agenda of the social conservatives and the religious right.

It seems like a horrible choice that the US citizens must make between social freedoms and economic freedoms. Its a shame that there isnt a single major party which espouses both.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


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.


I have always heard that in 18th and 19th century England, Liberalism meant NO governmental interference with private entrepreneurs. In other words, the conduct of the business of the East India Company was not to be interfered with by Parliament. Conservatives in Parliament at that same time felt no hesitation interfering with the private companies that abounded in the 1700s.

I don’t recall reading that ANYONE argued about the size of government per se as it was apparently accepted by all you would have the size of government that was needed to accomplish the goals or objectives of the state. Change in and of itself was not an issue raised by either Liberals or Conservatives in Parliament. Like some bodily functions I won’t mention here, change happens.

So where did 20th and 21st century Liberals originate? I’d say the liberal impulse has always existed. One poster above remarked he was either a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative. And I offer that is the reality of our political debates. America had a strong central government in its first 12 years. Then a weak central government until 1933 with brief interludes, in 1861, 1898, and 1917. The 1933 era ended in 1974 with the forced resignation of Richard Nixon. We are back in a era of weak central government.

Today's SIZE of government debate is a moniker liberals and conservatives try to hang on the other. Pejoratively. I believe the SIZE of government is not a positive indicator of its conservatism or liberalism. The privatization of the Federal government began with the Postal Reorganization Act signed by President Nixon on August 12, 1970, replaced the cabinet-level Post Office Department with the independent United States Postal Service. The Act took effect on July 1, 1971. Wikipedia lists 800,000 as the number of employees for USPS. en.wikipedia.org... For comparisons of other employers by size, see www.fool.com...
See also Note 1.

So when did modern liberalism - pro interventionists - come onto the political scene? I have seen a list of “Liberals” which included the first TWO presidents. Actually, GW and John Adams favored a STRONG central government but were probably very conservative in all other aspects of their political philosophy. They were after all, GREAT entrepreneurs. Especially Washington. He was the LARGEST distiller of whiskey in the 13 colonies. He was a major EXPORTER of grain to Europe. He was an early practitioner of scientific farming. I'm sure (as I can be) GW did not want CLOSE control of his personal affairs by any outsiders even though he believed in the cause of a strong central government. There is a real disconnect here we need to study further.

Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican successors - the Federalist died out soon after the 1800 election having briefly morphed into Whigs - were advocates of a WEAK central government. Their motives may have been more the protection of slavery than any deep philosophical reason. Recall the US Con slavery compromise of 1787 gave Congress power to HALT the future importation of slaves AFTER 1808. The 21 year pro-slavery hiatus was close to expiring! Abolitionists were salivating!

You can see that the omnipresent impulse of Americans to OWN the continent from sea to shining sea was almost always a factor in what was done publicly. Jefferson, supposedly a strident STATES RIGHTS man, jumped at the chance to UNILATERALLY commit the US to the Louisiana Purchase thereby doubling the area of the country. If anyone doubts Jefferson was looking at the Pacific Coast, remember he sent Lewis and Clark as a MILITARY expedition to find a route to the Pacific Ocean. States rights when is served his purpose, strong central government when that served his purpose. But an American Expansionist in any case.

Bush43 may have wrecked the economy so severely that we will be forced as a country to return to a strong central government to prevent RADICALISM from raising its dangerous head! Which I welcome.


Note 1.
America’s 10 largest private employers:
1. *McDonald's: 1.5 million employees globally
2. * Wal-Mart: 1.5 million
3. *General Motors (GMAC and Hughes): 341,000
4. *United Parcel Service: 359,000
5. *Ford Motor Company: 350,000
6. *IBM: 316,000
7. *General Electric: 315,000
8. *Kroger: 312,000
9. *Sears: 275,000, not counting seasonal workers
10. *J.C. Penney: 250,000

For more, see nyjobsource.com...

[edit on 4/16/2008 by donwhite]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Hmmm, what do I want to be, a Liberal or Conservative?

LIBERAL
Civil Rights for women
Civil Rights for blacks
Civil Rights for gays
Civil Rights for other religions
Safety net for the lower and middle classes after the fat cats ship their jobs overseas to exploit slavery and child labor(Supported by conservatives)
Tax and spend on schools, roads, police and fire fighters, enviroment, medical research to cure disease, so forth
PETA
Greenpeace
ACLU
NAACP



CONSERVATIVE
Women are slaves
Blacks are slaves
Gays are hung or dragged to death
Any non christians are burnt at the stake
Tax the lower and middle classes while cutting them for upper class then taking tax money from lower and middle classes and giving it to the upper class. Case in point taxing me then giving 18billion to oil companies after they report hundreds of billions in Profit. Not income, profit, money that goes in their overseas accounts
KKK
Neo NAZIs(And of course Hitler and the NAZIs the Conservative party in Germany who were funded by repulicans like Prescott Bush)
CC
Catholic Church
WKK

Hmm, who do I want to be? Do I want to wear a white hood and bedsheet with a Swastika on the back or do I want to not shoot a man for being gay, black, or another religion?

Also, Semper, Mr. Police Officer, I hope you turn down your next pay raise. After all its those evil taxes that mean you have a house, car, life. Why,a ccepting a pay raise would be the same as you breaking into a house and stealing a persons life saving from under their matress.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HHH Is King
 


Funny that your views are the polar opposite to mine.

Here's how I see it:

Liberals:

Pandering to minorities who do not pull their own weight in society, thusly denigrating those minorities that do pull their own weight.

Playing politics with the race issue and the gender issue

Civil rights of a different kind for gays. As far as I know gays are people- why do they need special or different rights?

Tax to the hilt. Rob the rich and squander on rampantly overpriced government projects which benefit nobody. Steal the hard earned money of hard working people to give to the lazy and bone idle.

No safety net... instead its a goddamn hammock whereby the lazy sponge off the hard working.

Ecofascism, FemiNazism, Reverse- discrimination


Conservatives:

Women are equals

Minorities are truly EQUALS. No pandering to certain vote banks

Gays may do as they please, as long as they do not infringe on others rights by activism in public

Respect and freedom for all religions equally. I am a conservative and a hindu. Thusfar I have not been burnt at the stake.

Tax nobody beyond their means or beyond moral limits. Give tax breaks to families and the hard working to support rather than trample on them.

KKK and Neo-Nazis are NOT conservative. Do not sully the good name of my movement by associating it with these collectivist, racist and socialist morons.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I have said it before:

The only belief system that is compatible with liberty and freedom is to be, at once, both fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Fiscally conservative doesn't mean "in bed with big business." It means that you don't add to the cost of running your country without a majority of the publics' support and a clear plan for how the increase costs will be paid for by corporate taxes and trade duties. For instance, the fiscal conservative would refrain from wars that profit only the corporations and have a natural disdain for stupidities such as carbon offsets and corporate welfare.

A true fiscal conservative would hate unchecked corporate greed and wage taxes. A real conservative fights the federal reserve and opposes overthrowing other nations because all those actions cost money and rob from you what have worked so hard for throughout your life.

Socially liberal doesn't mean degrading feed-the-poor programs or welfare or any of that nanny state crap. Being socially liberal is about pushing the human animal to become something greater than he was yesterday. Civil rights, womens suffrage, and free college education.

With the exception of the last thing, none of those listed cost the taxpayer anything because they were not deficiencies in the way we redistribute wealth. Instead they are all foundational deficiencies in the way human beings were encouraged, by the system, to act towards one another.

Knowledge is the key that opens the doors to liberty and freedom. Without a free educational system we, as a species, are purposefully denying people the right to live with freedom, liberty, and happiness. An uneducated person is an ignorant unhappy slave for the educated - he just doesn't know enough to understand.

Jon

[edit on 5.8.2008 by Voxel]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
44 Soul Slayer, its the Republicans that treat the Gays differently. Just like they treated women differently, and the blacks differently, and the Indians differently... It's not the liberals taking away their Civil Rights, or their lives. It's not the liberals dragging them to death behind their pickup truck while wearing pointy white hoods. It's not the liberals saying they are less then human so don't get the same rights as other humans. It's not the liberals who drag them out of bars and beat them senseless for being gay. Liberals are fighting to keep these things from happening and make sure they are treated the same as everyone else.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I have put off commenting on this thread for a variety of reasons but more than anything to see what everyone else had to say.

The question comes down to how do you define a liberalism and how do you define conservatism.

Simply put the core purpose of any government be it dictatorial, monarchial, communist or capitalist or any premutation between them is to provide a safe place for the raising of crops and childern... period. Everything else is gravy.

The question becomes then how do you interpert a safe place. To a liberal (and I am using these terms in a very limited way) it implies providing an environment with fresh air to breath and clean water to drink and some degree leveling of economic disparity to prevent old people and children living on the streets and civic upheaval. to the conservative it means little more than providing for a military and police leaving everything else up to the private sector.

To a conservative this is fundamental... to a liberal it is niave.

Everything else is open to debate within the context of these two interpertations of safe.

This btw is my and only my defination of the prupose of government but I think it works nicely.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by grover]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HHH Is King
44 Soul Slayer, its the Republicans that treat the Gays differently. Just like they treated women differently, and the blacks differently, and the Indians differently... It's not the liberals taking away their Civil Rights, or their lives. It's not the liberals dragging them to death behind their pickup truck while wearing pointy white hoods. It's not the liberals saying they are less then human so don't get the same rights as other humans. It's not the liberals who drag them out of bars and beat them senseless for being gay. Liberals are fighting to keep these things from happening and make sure they are treated the same as everyone else.


Listen here chap, what you said was entirely ignorant.

Lynchings of blacks and gays was perpertrated by the Democrat party.

All KKK members were Democrats. They despised the concept of abolition.

It was the Republican party under Lincoln that abolished slavery and emancipated the black population of America, and dont you forget it!

Of course, you may be talking about modern times... even then, would you care to show me where you have found a Republican engaging in lynching of blacks or gays? Republicans are for Equal Natural rights for all. We do not support special minority rights or homosexuals' rights because they are uncessary and unconstitutional. Need I remind you that the opening statement of the declaration of independence stated "All men are created EQUAL, and endowed with unalienable rights...etc".


On the other hand, liberal ideologies want separate laws and rights for minorities, gays, women and everyone else. There should be no separate rights in my opinion, because that creates a multi-tiered society which is inherently illogical and immoral.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Originally posted by HHH Is King
44 Soul Slayer, its the Republicans that treat the Gays differently. Just like they treated women differently, and the blacks differently, and the Indians differently... It's not the liberals taking away their Civil Rights, or their lives. It's not the liberals dragging them to death behind their pickup truck while wearing pointy white hoods. It's not the liberals saying they are less then human so don't get the same rights as other humans. It's not the liberals who drag them out of bars and beat them senseless for being gay. Liberals are fighting to keep these things from happening and make sure they are treated the same as everyone else.


Listen here chap, what you said was entirely ignorant.

Lynchings of blacks and gays was perpertrated by the Democrat party.

All KKK members were Democrats. They despised the concept of abolition.

It was the Republican party under Lincoln that abolished slavery and emancipated the black population of America, and dont you forget it!



Yes but it is to the Republican party the racist elements in the south bolted to when the Democrats changed their position on race and have indulged in playing the race card whenever they can get away with it.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by grover]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
He is probably young, doesn't know the history of the parties. You see Slayer, in the past Conservative and Liveral wasn't set by name of the party. There were COnservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans it wasn't until after a shift in the political world that Republican= Conservative and Democrat= Liberal.

Also, once the shift did happen the "democrats" who were conservative still were racist bigots but called themselves Republicans and were welcomed with open arms. One of the biggest most popular of these reacist bigots was Strom Thurmond, a man the GOP claimed would have changed things for the better if he had won the Presidency on his treat blacks worse then animals platform. Oops, he was raping and impregnated a 14 year old black girl. Funny, to the GOP they aren't good enough to eat at the same restaurant but good enough to rape.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Well HHH, if you want to throw dirt, then lets throw dirt.

I give you Senator R. C. Byrd. (Sheets Byrd)

en.wikipedia.org...

During this campaign, "Byrd went on the radio to acknowledge that he belonged to the Klan from 'mid-1942 to early 1943,' according to newspaper accounts.

Filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours — a move he now says he regrets.[14] Despite an 83 day filibuster in the Senate, both parties in Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Act, and President Johnson signed the bill into law.[15] He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 2005, Byrd told the Washington Post that his membership in the Baptist church led to a change in his views. In the opinion of one reviewer, Byrd, along with other Southern and border state Democrats, came to realize that he would have to temper "his blatantly segregationist views" and move to the Democratic Party mainstream if he wanted to play a role nationally.[4]

Because of his opposition to desegregation, Byrd was often regarded as a Dixiecrat - a member of this Democratic Party wing, opposing desegregation and civil rights imposed by the Federal Government. However, despite his early career in the KKK, Byrd was linked to such "dixiecrat" Senators as John C. Stennis, J. William Fulbright or George Smathers, who based their segregationist positions on the theory of state's rights in contrast to, for example, James Eastland, who held a reputation as a committed racist.

He is still a Democrat. So you can continue to be delusional if you wish but it was the Republicans that put through many civil rights reforms.

Roper



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HHH Is King


One of the biggest most popular of these reacist bigots was Strom Thurmond, a man the GOP claimed would have changed things for the better if he had won the Presidency on his treat blacks worse then animals platform. Oops, he was raping and impregnated a 14 year old black girl. Funny, to the GOP they aren't good enough to eat at the same restaurant but good enough to rape.


It wasn't the GOP that claimed the above, it was one man at Thurmond's Birthday party, Trent Lott.

Roper



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by HHH Is King
 


Please read your history books. Unless you want a lesson from me, in which case I demand tuition fees


Unless you're actually suggesting that right after abolition all the racists switched allegiance from democrat to republican and all abolitionists switched from republican to democrat, I fail to see your point.

While the republicans sought segregation in the 1900s and before, they never supported the "Peculiar Institution". It was only democrats who were guilty of such actions. That is historical fact- please do check up on it.

There is no debate here, only a lack of educational parity.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Here you go HHH. This guy is a Democrat. I also heard today that he has let go several police and firemen only to hire his family and friends, like 29 of them, WOW.


www.freep.com.../20080324/NEWS01/303250001

Kwame Malik Kilpatrick, once heralded as the bright future of the city that reared him, instead became the first sitting Detroit mayor to face criminal charges — eight felony counts, the fallout from a text message scandal.

I only bring this up because if a Republican did these things they would had resigned their position. From what I have seen these past years is that the Republicans have some honor where as the Democrats have none.

See the rep. from New Orleans that had a freezer full of cash and made the National Guard go in to his home and get the money. All this during the hurricane.


Roper






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join