quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

i think the democrats are more dangerous because of their fetish for wacking it to the loss of individual liberties

---

The Republicans have that, too, but they wack it to the loss of different individual liberties.

---

democrats want us to be subserviant to master goverment, republicans want it to be master big business. i say

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

i think the democrats are more dangerous because of their fetish for wacking it to the loss of individual liberties

---

The Republicans have that, too, but they wack it to the loss of different individual liberties.

---

democrats want us to be subserviant to master goverment, republicans want it to be master big business. i say

---

You'd better recognize.

---

i'm sure they both take it up the ass in whatever way keeps the coffer filled, but generally speaking people who profit from bigger government contribute to the democrats and those who profit from less government contribute to the republicans. if there's a better dichotomy out there, lay it on me. i am but a vaginal sponge soaking up knowledge's ejaculate

a finger up his ass

---
what if nigger meant kite

I thought I did.

Democratic elites set out to control the poor through welfare programs and policies that tend to induce a limited amount of upward socioeconomic mobility. They disguise this agenda in terms of bleeding heart compassion for their fellow man. Meanwhile, they set the system up so as to make tons of crooked bucks behind the scene. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

Republican elites act as if they believe the Democrats' guise of bleeding heart compassion, which the Republicans construct as misguided. Therefore, in the name of individual rights and responsibility, they set out to dismantle anything resembling a social safety net, meanwhile converting every public asset they can into private wealth for themselves and their friends. This attitude is not much worse than that of the Democrats, except for one thing: The masses tend to suffer a lot and become unruly when so treated.

They differ in less important ways as well. One champions every person's right to say or fuck whatever he wants while abhoring the act of self-defense against violence. The other would put coupons for handguns in our breakfast cereal but make public schools into churches and install security cameras in our bedrooms.

Both are profiteers, big-business whores, and lawless warmongers. All things considered, I'd vote Democrat most of the time.

---
What others say about boorite!

BTW, the "big government" epithet is a Republican propaganda meme. It only seems to mean what it means in ordinary English. In fact, its meaning is special, as these examples illustrate:

Big Government: Labor laws, environmental regulations, food, medicine, and school for poor people.

Not Big Government: A $300 billion S&L bailout, Federal definition of what constitutes a family, secret wars, election tampering, the Pentagon.

As you can see, the list of things that are "Not Big Government" qualify as big government under any ordinary use of those terms.

---
What others say about boorite!

Here is another illustration of what is meant by the sentence, "Republicans are against big government":

[IMG]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b5/boorite/deficit_1980-2015.gif[/IMG]

Note that in 1992, after 3 Republican Presidential terms, the federal deficit was about 4 times what it had been after the Carter years. Nonetheless, after two terms of Clinton, there was a federal surplus nearly as large as the deficit had been under Bush I. Bush II immediately reversed this trend, and now, six years later, the deficit is far larger than ever.

This what it means when Republicans say they are against "big government."

---
What others say about boorite!

I thought I did.

but syria us lee, i thank you for your well thought out responses and for the way your flaxen hair smells of water droplets clinging to green blades of grass after a spring rain

how do democrates make their crooked bucks usually? the republicans link to big business seems more straight forward

(selling granny tranny porn)

just because they champion your flavor of censorship doesn't mean they champion free speech. republicans are more willing to censor howard stern and flag burning while democrats are more willing to censor politically incorrect bugs bunny cartoons and the pledge of allegiance

good point. but both parties are all about implementing a "big government" when it comes to social issues. there's examples analogous to the censorship one with the definition of marriage, race relations, whatever

but what about fiscal policy? specifically tax burden. left to their own devices, which party do you think would collect more in taxes? no doubt it fluctuates at the extremes of the tax brackets, but i think of democrats and i think of increases in inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and the escalation of the progressive tax scale. i think republicans, i think reductions in the capital gains tax, reductions in inheritance tax, and a flat tax

with a majority democratic congress though, correct?

with a majority republican congress though, correct?

and do you remember how angry some democrats were at clinton about cutting the deficit? they even referred to him as a republican for doing so

what would you say drives the republicans to be more fiscally big government and the democrats less so? certain money pipelines in place for each?

---
what if nigger meant kite

In my experience, the usual ways: Insurance, real estate, public works kickbacks, tourism, telecom... the list goes on. It seems that the deals they make with the private sector supposedly on the public's behalf often turn out to be favorable to themselves and the business interests involved. Usually, it's crooked, as with kickbacks, turning a blind eye to inferior materials used in public works projects, and so on. Often, this stuff is technically legal, as when a mayor practically wraps downtown in Christmas paper and hands it over to the hotel-restaurant and pro sports biz, then when he's out of office, those same interests give him a cushy job with a gigantic paycheck. Smells like a backroom deal to me.

And then there's the everyday bribery we call campaign finance.

Portraying the situation this way is mostly a Democratic propaganda strategy, but both sides have endorsed it to an extent (the Republicans doing so in a bid for those big business campaign contributions), and I think it may have backfired on the Democrats in recent decades. As I see it, this could be because "big business" spends huge, huge, HUGE dollars convincing the public that it is benign. So the epithet "big business" doesn't have quite the sting it did, say, in the 1930s, when it seemed the country might be on the verge of some sort of Socialist upheaval.

Quite right. "Champion," like any positive word in politics, might here be said with a sneer. Let's say Democrats "champion" free speech in much the same way Republicans "champion" religion and free enterprise-- they pay lip service to it but are basically motivated by something else.

Of course. I mean to show that the Republicans' claim to be against "big government" is bogus, not so much to show that Democrats are for small government-- although in practice, they've had something to prove on this score in recent years, and so have wound up being the party of fiscal conservatives. But yes, any creature of government tends to be for "big government." No elected official or bureaucrat in my vast experience ever wants to see his little fiefdom shrink. Ever! Doesn't happen!

Lately, and in the short run, the Democrats. Collecting less in taxes, however, is a limited view of what it means to be fiscally conservative or against "big government," because budgets consist at least of revenues AND expenditures, and while it is consistent with an anti-big-government stance to cut revenues, it means less than nothing if they simultaneously increase expenditures, which is what the current administration has done. The bill is going to come due some day, with interest, and it's not going to pay itself. We're going to pay it, and the longer we procrastinate, the more it will hurt. This is big, bloated government that gets bigger and more bloated over time without our doing anything, and the fuckers in the White House dare to call it a tax break.

The top marginal tax rate was 55%, under Eisenhower, during an unprecedented period of national growth and prosperity.

with a majority democratic congress though, correct?

Which approved the submitted Reagan-Bush budgets usually within .5%-- that's half a percent-- and at most within 1.5%. Historically, the White House leads on budget.

with a majority republican congress though, correct?

Again, the budgets Clinton submitted were approved to within minute percentages.

Yes, he was more of a Republican than the Republicans!

The point is, the Republicans, having convinced people they're "against big government," can coast on that reputation while bloating government to Hindenburgian proportions. A Democrat-- Clinton-- couldn't get away with that. His administration had something to prove. So the thing that isn't supposed to happen happened, and the commonly held truth proved to be the opposite of true.

It's an illustration of a political principle I haven't seen put into words. It's the same principle that required a Republican 5-star General in the White House to stand down in the Korean war, causing Truman to remark, "I would have been crucified for that truce." It's the principle that caused the first black university president in a major midwestern state, a man liberal enough to merit the term "radical" in this country, to oppose same-sex partner benefits for university staff and faculty. Why? Because he would have been crucified. The Right would have been all over him, and there probably wouldn't be another black university president for 50 years.

Right now, it's that the Republican administration has to show voters that it really is "fiscally conservative," but at the same time, it can't permit its dominion to shrink. (That's practically a law of human organizations.) It can make an (empty) anti-big-government gesture by cutting taxes, but of course it must keep submitting big budgets to Congress, because it is not really against big government. Thus bloats the deficit.

Maybe the Democrats would dearly love to bloat government to the point where they get to stick Federal cameras up everyone's ass, but the fact is, they can't.

The whole mess is a sad mockery of political diversity.

---
What others say about boorite!

How many two faced, cocksucking, lying, thieving, politcal hacks does it take to change a light bulb?

"WHAT DID YOU DO WITH OUR MONEY, YOU CUNTBAGS?"

I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Oi!

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

---
Ham-fisted ham fisting.

The man who tried to do that lives in my city, and I know his daughter. She's very upset with him, and I find it hilarious that he trumpets that he's changing the pledge for her benefit when she hates his guts.

---
the kid's getting old, the kid's getting old

I think the "under God" phrase is dumb as fuck and an outrage against democracy, but it's not the thing I'd pick to go out and fight.

In any case, I wouldn't call it "censorship" to insist that it is not the role of State-employed agents to lead children in more or less compulsory religious pledges. I'd say it's the opposite of censorship in spirit, in that such a policy is essential to free thought. I'll admit there is such a thing as PC "censorship," but this isn't an example of it.

---
What others say about boorite!

why the pledge is important is that if you want to get into peoples heads and make it difficult for them to stop believing a fantasy, you must teach it to them as fact as a youth;

IE: There is a god, and "He" is a guy who listens to your prayers and does stuff for you.

For instance, if I go up to a typical american and say that Pangu (The chinese creator) created the world from the half of two eggs, and from this sprung four mighty beasts who aided him, and with his great axe he cleaved out the world, they will tell me this is clearly just made up bullshit.

On the other hand, it is difficult for them to see the talking snake in a garden with an apple, and seven days and let there be light as 'myth'.

Why?

I guess because if you reach us early enough you can make it hard for our brains to shut off the 'bullshit detector' that we can so easily use to dismiss the pangu creation theory.

So if Christians want to control us, they need to reach us in the boy scouts and in pledges of allegiance and other 'helpful' and 'patriotic' ways. Wrapping their god, into our country.

Good thing we all worship the great scrotum. Am I right or am I right?

---
the kid's getting old, the kid's getting old

There's a Great Scrotum? And all this time I was worshipping the Lesser Scrotum! Scrotum damn it!!

---
What others say about boorite!

---
The following statement its true. The previous statement is false

I thought it was a good explanation.

I still like the Great Scrotum though.

Republicans want to control our morals, Democrats want to control our money. They both want to control our lives. The ultimate success for either party is a totalitarian dictatorship or at best a very limited oligopoly. the onyl real differences lie in who would be in control and what rules would be in place when we're all bowing down.

I don't get the whole idea of the two parties being so different. Let's face it, both parties have pulled almost full 180s in their existence. The Republican party was originally a breakoff from the Democrats called the "Anti-Slavery Democrats". There's a reason a lot of racist southerners are still democrats. It's the same reason a lot of people who are anti-government are still republicans.

Everyone tosses around the "federal deficit" figures, but when it comes down to it, what does that really matter? Federal spending merely adds to our monsterous GDP, and just about any good economist (no matter his political views) will tell you that a budget surplus is rarely a good thing for the economy. Focus more on where that money is going than the fact that it's going somewhere, then you'll have a reason for being pissed.

Right now, the Democrats have an edge in debate, being the "out" party for the last term and a half, they can criticize the Republicans' handling of things as much as they want without really coming under much fire themselves. Take this stupid war for example. I can say that if I were president, this would have been handled much better, and people would be fairly well inclined to believe me. However, this is all pure speculation since, to be honest, I've never even served a political office.

The outspoken opponents of the war also have the incredible power of hindsight. This allows us to say "this should have been handled this way" with a lot of certainty. While I'm on the topic of defending the current administration, people often point to Bush's early handling of the 9/11 attack. They say he reacted too slowly. You don't just jump up and say "BOMB THOSE MUTAFUCKAS" when something happens and you have power. That kind of reaction is what initiates global atomic warfare. On the other hand, stupid bastard could have at least excused himself to go figure out what the hell was going on. And the handling of the New Orleans thing was just a failure on multiple levels of government.

Clinton was a decent president, but can we please take off the blinders and remember that during his presidency, there were troops in the middle east shooting brown people with sheets on their heads too? If anything, he was a good president because he tried to get rid of some of the entrapping social welfare laws, or at least reduce their effects.

In the end, I personally don't see a huge distinction between parties. I see a distinction between people. And "at least he's not Bush" to me sounds like "Well, Stalin killed lots of people and oppressed pretty much everyone else, but at least he's not Hitler".

Feel free to pick this whole thing apart sentence by sentence. It was just stream of consciousness anyway.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

nuh uh

---
What others say about boorite!

CURSES!

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

yuh huh!

The man who tried to do that lives in my city, and I know his daughter. She's very upset with him, and I find it hilarious that he trumpets that he's changing the pledge for her benefit when she hates his guts.

ignoring the obvious that no compulsory statement is in the spirit of free thought, it's definitely a flavor of censorship. the entire pledge is compulsory yet one part gets removed because of the desire to separate church and state. it facilitates that goal, but that doesn't mean it isn't using censhorship to do so. to think that it isn't, you'd almost have to adopt a deist attitude yourself since it presupposes there to be something special about the word thy 'God'. l00l

i found the rest of your post enlightening though. i thank you and give you this coupon for buy one blowjob get one free. redeemable at participating Kajun's moms everywhere

---
what if nigger meant kite

ignoring the obvious that no compulsory statement is in the spirit of free thought, it's definitely a flavor of censorship. the entire pledge is compulsory yet one part gets removed because of the desire to separate church and state. it facilitates that goal, but that doesn't mean it isn't using censhorship to do so. to think that it isn't, you'd almost have to adopt a deist attitude yourself since it presupposes there to be something special about the word thy 'God'.

Did you mean theist?

To determine what does and doesn't go in the country's Pledge of Allegiance isn't censorship any more than determining what does and doesn't go in the country's national anthem. Nobody is telling teachers or schoolchildren that they can't stand up on a park bench and declare that this is one nation under God. They are saying that statements of religious belief do not belong in official government proclamations.

But you bring up an excellent point, which is that compelling anyone to pledge allegiance to anything smacks of totalitarianism. I agree. So get the damn Pledge out of schools. What are we afraid if? Kids will join al Qaeda if we don't make them recite this dumb thing?

Still, the country needs a Pledge, if only for military recruits and naturalized citizens. And that Pledge shouldn't make you say anything about religion. People can say this is God's country all they want, but the government has no business doing so.

---
What others say about boorite!

see:

&

your argument is basically that it upholds some other principle that you believe in so is justified. you said, to paraphrase, that its in the spirit of non-censhorship. but ask yourself this - if a majority of the people in the country want it to stay in the pledge of allegiance, would your opinion on it change? my guess is no. that's because its a competing desire. thats made obvoius when you realize that a willingness to remove wording that a majority of people want to stay is precisely censhorship 'of the people'. for the sake of another principle, but that doesn't make it any less so

how about the one you took:

---
what if nigger meant kite