money for ugly

[pocketfullofshells]

I do not think you are right about any of that. Can you cite a reliable source proving your accusation that Republicans...all Republicans were against the items you listed? Were any Ds against those things?

We know the Ds are the party of slavery, segregation, class warfare, socialism, denigration of the Constitution, and on-demand baby murder. Are any of these things a problem for you?

and once again failing to understand shifts in partys....thinking that 150 years ago the parties where the same people and ideas.

 

[bododie]

and once again failing to understand shifts in partys....thinking that 150 years ago the parties where the same people and ideas.

Oh, any group (i.e. Christians, white people, anyone who has a brain to make money with, and not just brawn, like their "ancestors"), and anyone else libs have a problem with, haven't changed at all, right?

Tolerants embrace hyprocrisy at every turn.

THAT hasn't changed at all.

My wish for libs is to to leave an "honorable" went down with the ship legacy.

 

[Gipper]

and once again failing to understand shifts in partys....thinking that 150 years ago the parties where the same people and ideas.

Wrong again.

I was responding to Proudlefty who cited several historical worker benefits claiming the Rs were against them all. That is citing historical issues. So, I also cited historical issues related to the Commie Party.

And, you claim these things occurred 150 years ago. This is wrong too. The Ds are the party of baby killing, class warfare, and socialism TODAY. They were the party of segregation just 50 years ago.

You must be so proud of your parties history and current activities.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Wrong again.

I was responding to Proudlefty who cited several historical worker benefits claiming the Rs were against them all. That is citing historical issues. So, I also cited historical issues related to the Commie Party.

And, you claim these things occurred 150 years ago. This is wrong too. The Ds are the party of baby killing, class warfare, and socialism TODAY. They were the party of segregation just 50 years ago.

You must be so proud of your parties history and current activities.

you should try paying attention some day
First I am not even a Dem
2nd..the part of the Dems that was for those things..changed...they became Republicans...same ideas, new party...

its sad you actually think a party label is more important then the ideas.

What party was for states rights...republicans or republicans...they fought a war agaisnt them , and today claim them all the time...Its the same type of thought behind the ideas...but the party name is not the same...

And as for your other point...Republicans where against Labor then...they are against them now...party name the same underlying idea the same....only thing that changed...(95% of the population is for those things and they want to get elected.

If republicans thought they could win elections and still be against those things..I bet many would..

 

[Gipper]

you should try paying attention some day
First I am not even a Dem
2nd..the part of the Dems that was for those things..changed...they became Republicans...same ideas, new party...

Its impossible to understand you. You are all over the place and never stay on point.

Did you forget that you attacked me for bringing up historical and current facts about the D party?

Why are you NOT a Dem? I would guess because they are not commie enough for you, but maybe you could enlighten me so I do not have to guess.

 

[bododie]

Why are you NOT a Dem? I would guess because they are not commie enough for you, but maybe you could enlighten me so I do not have to guess.

Because their chosen one is a failure. If you recall, the libs were actually acting like he was going to be the "messiah" for the "picked on".

If Barack had been anything else but an abject failure, POS would consider himself a dem. I guess some people don't read their own posts, and if they do, then would probably deny that it was them, and blame some Republican from Reagan's administration.

I guess it must be the perogative of libs to decide that they can be "independents" when it suits them, but anyone who is a little bit to the right of center is a die hard conservative, gay bashing, gun toting, uneducated anti America straight across the board.

Why? you ask?

Because some lib on the street said so, and rachel mad-cow disease backed-up their special interest specific agenda.

These are the same people who claim that dems stay true to their convictions you know...right up to the moment that it costs them something, and not someone else.

 

[bododie]

The bottom line is that this is the brain child of a stupid LIBERAL professor at UTA. This is a LIBERAL "poor me" for whatever damn reason, ploy for free money.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Because their chosen one is a failure. If you recall, the libs were actually acting like he was going to be the "messiah" for the "picked on".

If Barack had been anything else but an abject failure, POS would consider himself a dem. I guess some people don't read their own posts, and if they do, then would probably deny that it was them, and blame some Republican from Reagan's administration.

I guess it must be the perogative of libs to decide that they can be "independents" when it suits them, but anyone who is a little bit to the right of center is a die hard conservative, gay bashing, gun toting, uneducated anti America straight across the board.

Also your messiah thing..thats just what Republicans said....its a nice straw man to act like the left thought he was the Messiah...but we did not..We did think he would be a huge improvement over 8 years of Bush...and he is...just not as much as we wanted...thanks to Republicans blocking anything he tries to do..

Why? you ask?

Because some lib on the street said so, and rachel mad-cow disease backed-up their special interest specific agenda.

These are the same people who claim that dems stay true to their convictions you know...right up to the moment that it costs them something, and not someone else.

being that I have not voted for a Dem in any Election outside president in almost 20 years...and even for that I have not always voted for them...the fact that I have worked for 2 parties...against the Dems...makes me think that no I am not a Dem..one way or the other. The man I voted for for MN gov..a former GOP strategist and Republican senatorial press secretary. He had the backing of many powerful former Republicans in MN....He just was not a tea party redneck crazy nutjob the rest of the republicans seem to like. I voted for him over the very liberal Mark Dayton...why? Because I am not a Dem.

 

[bododie]

Lol. Thanks for that unwanted opinion of yourself.

Really Pockets? What senator from Minnesota were you all happy about? Was he a Republican dear Mr. Land of Two Senators again? Gee, I guess the state has two comedians, neither of whom are funny.

I don't care what party you belong to or whether you belong to something. You support platforms and social programs that I do not, therefore nothing else matters. You can call yourself a pink gun totin' fashion icon, and it doesn't change anything.