Well, there's the whole "abortion" thing. And the whole "never raise taxes, no matter what! " thing...

Are from America or abroad, Sicarius?

Well actually Stratagos the "whole 'never raise takes'" thing doesn't really apply to either because they both do it. I'd say one group tells you what you can't do socially, and the other says what you can't do economically.

Are you from*

There are not huge differences between the two main parties on many issues for the simple reason that, in general, the majority of voters agree on a lot of things. If one of the parties tries to differ from what the voters want, they don't get votes.

So, for example, you see more punishment than rehabilitation in the criminal justice system *even though the latter is more effective* because politicians and parties that put forward such ideas *don't get elected*.

So if both parties agree on something you disagree with, Sic, it's primarily because more voters *who actually vote* disagree with you

ezpickins hits the heart of the matter, I believe.... polysci 101.

" I'd say one group tells you what you can't do socially, and the other says what you can't do economically."

Not really. That's the libertarian view. It doesn't really work though and is overly simplistic. Take guns for example. The right wants unrestricted gun rights. The left (Democratic Party anyway) does not. That's a social issue, is it not? What of affirmative action and hate crime law? Another social policy that the right wants repealed, believing its right and proper for property owners to discriminate.

I don't know why, in the age of the tea party, this question is even taken seriously. Siccy simply won't accept anything as being different unless it agrees with the overthrow of capitalism and the state.

Democrats are in favor of: Maintaining Social Security & Medicare, the Employee Free Choice Act, rights of collective bargaining, affirmative action, abortion rights, progressive income taxation, investment in schools and infrastructure, stimulus spending in times of crisis, protecting unemployment and disability benefits, immigration policy that doesn't involve apartheid passbooks, opposes the Mexican wall, doesn't believe all black people are criminals, doesn't believe all Muslims are terrorists, believes Muslims should be allowed citizenship rights, doesn't believe women are uteruses with legs, doesn't believe in terrorism/assassinations/violence against people they disagree with, doesn't believe Wall Street are angels who did nothing wrong, doesn't blame the government for the financial crisis, doesn't believe corporations should pay zero in taxes, doesn't believe in massive subsidies for super-rich oil companies while regular people pay 25-30% of their income in taxes, doesn't believe in exterminating criminals as a matter of social policy, doesn't believe sick people should be left to die in the emergency room, doesn't believe gays should be stoned to death and kicked out of the military with their benefits rescinded, doesn't believe in voter suppression. I could go on and on. This is a silly question. I know Siccy will say none of that is good enough and doesn't mean anything. Tell that to the people who fought all year to repeal issue 2 in Ohio. Tell that to the people in Mississippi who voted down the personhood amendment.

*repeal SB 5.

Oh and Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor, the unemployed, and the retired via the income tax.

The whole thing is a mess.
Get rid of the whole messed up tax code (hey Putin, that gets rid of the loopholes those evil corporations take advantage of). We need to make the income tax only apply in times of war, and narrow everything down to property tax, sales tax, in addition to the taxes in the original constitution. More later, didn't have much time to think about this, don't go crazy please.

"didn't have much time to think about this"

lol you don't say

Oh, Putin. Your post made me laugh. Not your intention probably, but it just reminds me of watching the news and how they skew things. (I'm not attacking you here. Just pointing out your obviously loaded statements. How long before you get a bite?)

"We need to make the income tax only apply in times of war, and narrow everything down to property tax, sales tax, in addition to the taxes in the original constitution."

Right, only keep regressive taxes that disproportionaly affect people with less disposable income, while the taxes that the rich pay get eliminated. Good one. Keep reading Fountainhead.

"How long before you get a bite?)"

Eh?

The problem, sicarius, as with most things, is that people will give you and answer and you will simply refuse to acknowledge it, because your personal world view is that they are equal -- because you hold some ridiculous radial belief system and by contrast to your own personal demintia they appear the same. For rational people that actually live in this world and have real-world responsibilities, there is a significant difference. To business owners -- for example in Michigan -- there is a significant difference. The previous Democratic governor thought that raising taxes on businesses would grow state revenues. She then handed out tax breaks to her favorite companies - such as 'green energy'....which failed to make an appearance. In the end, businesses fled Michigan, and her choosen industry -- because even with tax breaks it is not viable (windmills in Michigan don't work...). In comes Republican Governor (and non-politician/businessman) Snyder....who immediately restructures taxes, lowering them for businesses, removing loopholes, and making a fairer leveler system. Guess what...business is starting to thrive in Michigan. I do technical staffing of Engineers, and we can't find enough talent because suddenly everybody is hiring. The only thing to change in Michigan is the tax structure. So there is fairly solid anecdotal proof that base philosophy of Dems and Repubs is different. You will, naturally, dismiss this.

The notion that all parties raise taxes is just flat out a lie. There is a basic principle at play. If all parties always raised taxes, then they never would have come down from their ominous highs under Carter. So, once again, it is the sad lack of historical knowledge and the willful ignorance of facts that seems to drive so many emotioanlly-held beliefs on these threads.

Reagan lowered taxes. Period. I know...someone will say he raised them, blah blah blah because they will find some loophole that he closed...but overall, the tax rates dropped, and businesses grew. Clinton will claim he lowered taxes....of course, he did not do so until the Republicans took over Congress and forced his hand (thank you Newt Gingrich.) Likewise, Democrats at times have forced the hand of weak Repubican Presidents.

Because politics in the US is NOT a dictatorship, of course noone can ever say "Our party always did X" becaue that's not how the country runs, thank god. But to suggest that both parties have the exact same principle on tax policy is simply pure, unadulterated ignorance.

Other differences: Views on energy policy - in particular oil exploration - which has been all but shut down by the Democrats, while Republicans scream for energy exploration. Democrats have their hand tied by environmental activists with shoddy science. The same folks that said we were entering an ice age when I ws 15 say we are goign to burn up and die. the same folks that said the planet couldn't sustain a billion people, that we would all starve, etc etc etc. but this isn't the time for that debate.

Abortion -- of course -- if a big difference....though there are naturally some Dems that believe in Life, and some Republicans that believe in-utero murder is fine....but the parties in general are in stark contrast.

the notion that the parties are the same is childish at best, and simply is an indication of how willfully, woefully ignorant you are.

That both parties APPEAR the same may be because we all live in the same great country...and hopefully there ARE some common principles between all Americans. It is proper that both parties believe in Free Speech, for example, and believe in the "democratic" process of this representative republic. I hope they do look somewhat the same....but so suggest that core principles mirror one another is ridiculous.

"Another social policy that the right wants repealed, believing its right and proper for property owners to discriminate. "

It is a right for one to deny a service to ANYONE for ANY REASON, whether it is proper depends on the situation, and it is not the government's place to say what you can do in a situation that is not a classic crime (murder, theft, etc.) because the owner of the property has the right to do what he thinks he needs to in order to protect himself and his possessions. You may disagree with this in a business setting, but you have to think a little deeper than the common idea. You say yourself that all business and money are are greed, so isn't the business benefiting by letting anyone buy the product? They are illogically cheating themselves out of money if they deny service to anyone. The only reason I find that someone WOULD is because of various beliefs in religion, etc. and the government is given no power over beliefs unless this is limited.

"Democrats are in favor of: Maintaining Social Security & Medicare"

Realistically, the "right wing nuts" are only going for reform at this point. Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt, and they WILL cease to exist unless they are rolled back. The few republicans going for this are actually SAVING it. Social Security is the same situation. Again, the "right wing radicals" are trying to roll back on how much the program costs by providing an opt out for those who don't want the government to take their money and invest it for them and decreasing the payments. I have heard NO REPUBLICAN say that he/she wants to flat out remove Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. I have only heard wants for slow, methodical disbanding of the program until the citizens of the US are no longer dependent on any of the programs. I still don't see Republicans really even talking (none) about getting rid of Medicare or Medicaid completely, merely reforming it to our budget.

"rights of collective bargaining, affirmative action, abortion rights, progressive income taxation, investment in schools and infrastructure, stimulus spending in times of crisis, protecting unemployment and disability benefits"

Collective bargaining is really a silly concept to me, because it involves a huge mass of adults feeling a mob mentality, that can cause them to do anything, and kicking and screaming at the top of their lungs about how they are oppressed and have the right to determine their own working conditions and they can determine the size of their classes and a whole slew of other adrenaline fueled junk. There is literally a lower IQ total between all of them after they've started than one person's IQ alone. (joke, not based on scientific study) As far as protesting in general by the left wing (not really into calling them that) they continually let their morals seep through where they can show. This website, and link in particular, I guarantee appropriate and I suggest everyone see it. This depicts the grounds around the "One Nation" rally.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/on-the-ground-at-the-%E2%80%9Cone-nation%E2%80%9 -march/
The ground after the "Restoring Honor" rally was spotless. Affirmative action is a wasteful and forceful policy in any case, and does not supply the best workers, or the best students for college. Abortion is essentially murder, and I have discussed and cleared up the reason the person-hood amendment was/needs to be repealed on the "Barack Obama's Reelection" forum. The right wingers have pushed to repeal the Department of Education, and a few have voiced to get the government out of education entirely. While I think America would be better off without such government interference, mostly because education has actually dropped since the government got involved in education, the Republicans are not a party that refuses public education entirely. Power costs have risen since any level of government has taken power distribution over. All stimulus bills have failed, especially the most recent. I have covered benefits. The "passbooks" reference is completely irrelevant to my current (current) understanding, the Mexican wall opposes illegal immigration, the left doesn't (directly defies the Constitution). The right has never labeled all Muslims terrorists, but some are, so they are right, the right believes in (italics) cautious immigration of Muslims because there is a current movement by some of that religion to take over America (essentially) merely by having a superior number of citizens in the country.

"doesn't believe women are uterus's with legs"

Pure ridiculous. (might I say... no credibility? please withhold such idiotic statements)

"doesn't believe all black people are criminals"

Again you take a leap of faith. Over a cliff. You only based this upon whatever few pieces you happened to determine for yourself are proof that the right thinks all blacks are criminals. Like linking ice cream to polio. BTW, does Herman Cain think all blacks are criminals? Or are the Republicans just backing him in order to cover up their racist beliefs? (The "left" has actually accused the "right" of this many times.)

"doesn't believe all Muslims are terrorists, believes Muslims should be allowed citizenship rights"

The right has never labeled all Muslims terrorists, but some are, so they are right, the right believes in (italics) cautious immigration of Muslims because there is a current movement by some of that religion to take over America (essentially) merely by having a superior number of citizens in the country.

"doesn't believe in massive subsidies for super-rich oil companies while regular people pay 25-30% of their income in taxes, doesn't believe in exterminating criminals as a matter of social policy, doesn't believe sick people should be left to die in the emergency room, doesn't believe gays should be stoned to death and kicked out of the military with their benefits rescinded, doesn't believe in voter suppression"

And finally, how about this perspective?
'Doesn't believe in massive subsidies for super-rich oil companies that pay up to 80% of their income to the government while regular people pay only 25-30%, doesn't believe in exterminating criminals as a matter of social policy or even keeping it in place to at least have the highest stake possible if you decide to kill someone, even though it isn't used much anyway, doesn't believe in sick people supposedly being left to die in the emergency room (credible source?), doesn't believe that gays should be stoned to death (ridiculous, no credible source, i presume) and kicked out of the military with their benefits rescinded even though that subject has no place in the military and decreases the effectiveness of our military, doesn't believe in voter suppression even though near to nothing was done to stop the Black Panthers and JFK was probably gained the national vote by dead people in Chicago.

I really don't like using the left and right names... that's all.

I'm responding to Bomb's text with a wall of text of my own, since I know people will whine about it. I'll try to concisely address Bomb's arguments.

1 - It appears the only rights libertarians preoccupy themselves with is the manufactured "rights" of bigots and racists and pine for the "good ol' days" of Jim Crow. I'm not surprised Bomb is in favor of oppressed minority groups being deprived of basic public services on account of their race or any other factor, but it's ludicrous to speak of this as a "right" and has been ludicrous since at least 1964. Only hardcore reactionaries want to to repeal the Civil Rights Act and reestablish what so many fought for so long to eradicate. What do you tell people, Bomb, when they have no access to transportation except the private bus lines which all preclude certain racial groups from coming on board? Tough? If they get fired because they have no transportation to their work, oh well? So long as the white "property" owners don't have to bear the "tyranny" of allowing non-whites on their buslines, you're content. What about the hospital that precludes certain groups from getting medical care in their ERs? That''s fine too I guess. Because you read a book on libertarianism.

Oops, accidentally submitted that.

2 - Owners do *not* have the right to do whatever they please with their possessions. Property does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in the public sphere. You have a responsibility to the public with your property and you can't use your property for purposes which are deleterious for the wider community. For example, you can't use your property to just pollute the crap out of the neighborhood. I know libertarians are opposed to basic safety and public health regulations, but sane people are not. You can't operate an amusement park and let little babies ride dangerous rides. You can't manufacture automobiles without seat belts. There are plenty of production and safety standards that keep us secure every single day.

2 - It is not illogical to discriminate which is why so many private railroad companies pushed the government to enact Jim Crow laws and overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1875. In libertarian mythology, segregation occurred because the state governments initiated it. Wrong. Private companies were pushing this kind of thing far before the Jim Crow laws. Private railroads calculated that they'd gain more, richer, white customers by segregating their trains than by not discriminating.

3 - So naturally you'd be a-ok if all the neighborhood businesses all of a sudden stopped selling anything to Muslims or Jews in their community, right?

4 - You obviously haven't been paying attention. Social Security has a surplus, it is not going bankrupt. You don't know what you're talking about. SS is not paid for with deficit spending, it is paid for with the payroll tax. Payroll taxes have increased when SS has needed the money, which is what Reagan did in the 1980s. And yes Republicans have called for eliminating it. The Ryan plan is a plan to eliminate Medicare and turn it into a voucher program for private insurance. That's abolishment. Rick Perry has repeatedly called SS a ponzi scheme and the Republicans have been trying to eliminate it through privatization since time immemorial. Bush tanked his entire second term trying to do that.

4 - Of course it's silly to you. When have you ever faced the prospect of being fired for no reason, of having your wages arbitrarily slashed, of being forced to work overtime with no extra pay, of being discriminated against in the workplace, of having your employer not give a damn about your safety. I bet never. The fact that we enjoy *any rights at all* is because of "silly" collective bargaining. Evidently you libertarians only support freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of speech if it means giving more power to corporations. Ordinary people be damned. Only the rich have the right to free speech, right? Money is speech, right?

Not surprising that a snob like would insult the intelligence of every single hard working trade unionist. Especially a snob who is gullible and naive enough to subscribe to the Ayn Rand cult .

5 - Like socialism, you haven't the slightest clue what affirmative action does. But why should I expect someone who wants to repeal civil rights laws would have the foggiest idea about affirmative action. The existence of people like you demonstrates that AA is still strongly needed.

6 - The personhood proposal wasn't passed, so I have no idea what you're on about here. You're calling for the repeal of something that wasn't passed while claiming that abortion is murder? Not surprised that a "libertarian" thinks the government has the right to control women's uteruses and vaginas and that women's health matters little as they're just considered to be receptacles for fertilized eggs who are entitled to all the rights of fully gestated and born human beings.

Republicans have been engaged in a war on public education since forever. They gut our schools of funding, they impose absurd mandates on them, they continually attack teachers, they continually blame everything on public schools, they continually suck money away with their asinine voucher and charter school schemes which have failed *miserably* to do anything for public education. They hate not only teachers but academia, continually calling people "overpaid" and "lazy" for daring to enter this field, and then they wonder why educators don't like Republicans very much!

The stimulus bill prevented a depression. You once again have no idea what you're talking about. Look at our economic stats in 2008 and 2009, and then see the recovery. We lost trillions in GDP under your Republicans prior to Obama taking office. The stimulus was too small, but it still worked. You Republicans cut spending in the middle of a recession in the 1930s and sunk us into a depression. That's why we're never listening to you again as you have zero credibility on the economy.

If they don't think all Muslims of terrorists, why do they object when anybody tries to build a mosque anywhere in the country? Why has your hero Herman Cain said he won't allow a Muslim to be in his cabinet? Why have Fox news commentators continually said that we ought to racially profile Muslims at airports and it's ok to yank Muslims off planes because people are "scared"?

Why did Republicans push the Ugandan kill the gays bill?

"Doesn't believe in massive subsidies for super-rich oil companies that pay up to 80% of their income to the government while regular people pay only 25-30%"

Where did you get this absurd figure from? Your rear-end?

(for now this is all, I will only hit on a few points)
I apologize, the number was actually the marginal tax rate. That particular tax peaked at 77% in WWI and 94% in WWII.

"The stimulus bill prevented a depression. You once again have no idea what you're talking about."
This is a depression. I've heard plenty of unemployed and qualified speakers say so, and from the stats, it looks like it. You can't tell on the streets because a large percentage of the poor own household appliances, artificially.


"We lost trillions in GDP under your Republicans prior to Obama taking office."
Prior meaning right before? The democrats took control of both houses, in 2007, before the crash. They failed to do anything to realistically improve up until the majority was taken away.

Note: I do not glorify the use of discrimination. Where you got that idea was a dark place that told you that aimlessly insulting me was a good idea when there was no powder in the barrel. The insult rallies your followers to be mad at me, saying that I am racist, sexist, etc., with no great reason in this case. Based off of thin air, no... a vacuum.

Somehow I knew this questions was going to initiate heated debate....

And affirmative action is forcing a company to have an equal or at least "reasonable" number of each race, and a "reasonable" number of each gender. Same with colleges, too, getting an equal number of students. I don't think that it is based on honest assessment of one's abilities, and I think I would feel awfully insulted if I were an African American and I needed to be artificially accepted into a university, even though I honestly wasn't good enough.

I never said I was libertarian, either. While I agree that each person is responsible for every one of his actions, I think that this society has grown so pampered that we could not handle the responsibility of making all of our own decisions, so it is rather unrealistic.

And I'd be pretty careful if I were you about telling me what I have and have not done. I never said you had to listen to me, but you still talk to me because you think the points I make are good enough that you have to drill them without thinking/ evidence/ knowledge of my background and experiences or knowledge.

Be careful.

But of course I don't pose a threat to a grown adult who seems to spend his day on a computer game, or some of it at least.

Yes Atomic, I have a tendency do do that.

No it wasn't just you. It's interesting to see how many different viewpoints are on this website, some more flawed than others ** cough cough** krellin

But I do, every one I go on explodes after the first post...

"The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference."
-Ralph Nader

Well said Nader

Your first post pisses me off Putin:

Democrats are in favor of: Maintaining Social Security & Medicare
Despite them being unstustainable and to expensive

The rest is a tl;dr until I get the time to respond.

"the Employee Free Choice Act"
Even though it doesn't actually make Employee's Free

"progressive income taxation"
Even though its complicated and discourages investment

"stimulus spending in times of crisis"
As shown in 2008/09 as well as the 1920s Germany, spending can make it worse.

"protecting unemployment and disability benefits"
Rather then force them to find a job

"immigration policy that doesn't involve apartheid passbooks"
Repubicans agree

"doesn't believe all black people are criminals"
So Cain believes he is a criminal?

"doesn't believe all Muslims are terrorists"

"doesn't believe women are uteruses with legs"
Sarah Palin agrees?

"doesn't believe in terrorism/assassinations/violence against people they disagree with'
Yes, so what do you call Obama's assassination of Osama and over-throw of Gadaffi (a man you supported)? your contradicting yourself Putin.

"doesn't believe Wall Street are angels who did nothing wrong"
So the Democrats stimulas plan that gave more money to wallstreet was less angel like then the republicans, once again your contradicting yourself, as being an angel to wallstreet is a prerequisite for stimulus spending.

"doesn't blame the government for the financial crisis"
Despite it being the governments fault

"doesn't believe corporations should pay zero in taxes"
Niether do the republicans

"doesn't believe in massive subsidies for super-rich oil companies"
JFK was the first president to subsidies them...
Also subsidies = stimulus...

"while regular people pay 25-30% of their income in taxes"
Rich pay 35, and you think thats to low...

"doesn't believe in exterminating criminals as a matter of social policy"
Actually most of them do, Obama is pro-capital punishment...

"doesn't believe in voter suppression"
The republicans don't suppress votes other then the youth who are to simple minded to understand politics.

"the youth who are to simple minded to understand politics. "

arnt you like fourteen?

"I apologize, the number was actually the marginal tax rate. That particular tax peaked at 77% in WWI and 94% in WWII.
"

Great, so you admit you're making stuff up. You admit that you have nothing to counter the fact that many of the riches corporations paid *zero* in taxes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html All of our tax rates are at record lows. Particularly the capital gains tax, lazy people can sit on their ass and make money off dividends and only pay 15% in tax, while people who actually *work for a living* pay 30% of their income in various forms of taxes. So much for the right being for hard work and personal responsibility. Apparently that type of mooching is acceptable, as is inheritance. Heaven forbid we tax inheritance.

The top marginal tax rate, for people earning more than 380,000, is 35%, a historic low. Wow, what tax tyranny that is.

"And I'd be pretty careful if I were you about telling me what I have and have not done."

You can't play this game of whining about your age and how people are picking on a 14 year and then personally attack every single trade unionist as being lazy and stupid. You give yourself the power to judge how other people live and other people's work ethic and life experience, but nobody can say anything about you. Sorry, doesn't work. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

"And affirmative action is forcing a company to have an equal or at least "reasonable" number of each race, and a "reasonable" number of each gender."

No it isn't, your ignorance is showing. Affirmative action simply tells employers and schools to pay attention to composition, and to enact steps to rectify problems with composition. It doesn't impose any kind of quota or say you have to get an equal number, it simply says you should consider people from diverse backgrounds, and not look to the same pool of applicants every time.

" I do not glorify the use of discrimination. "

You said it's a human right and came out in favor of repealing laws on the books that protect against private property owners using their property in a discriminatory way. I don't really care if you haven't considered the implications of that view. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforces these policies which you oppose.

"This is a depression. I've heard plenty of unemployed and qualified speakers say so, and from the stats, it looks like it. You can't tell on the streets because a large percentage of the poor own household appliances, artificially."

Which is why the economy is growing and unemployment is going down.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.nr0.htm
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

"I never said I was libertarian, either."

You talk like one and you came out with strong praise of Ayn Rand. Whatever, I'll describe your ideology correctly when you stop abusing the term 'socialism' every 3 seconds.

"Your first post pisses me off Putin:"

Must be doing something right when a Holocaust supporter is pissed at me.

"Prior meaning right before? The democrats took control of both houses, in 2007, before the crash. They failed to do anything to realistically improve up until the majority was taken away."

The housing crisis had already taken effect before 2007, so no you can't pin this on the Democrats. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTARUhP3w5xE&refer=home

"It is not illogical to discriminate which is why so many private railroad companies pushed the government to enact Jim Crow laws and overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1875. In libertarian mythology, segregation occurred because the state governments initiated it. Wrong. Private companies were pushing this kind of thing far before the Jim Crow laws. Private railroads calculated that they'd gain more, richer, white customers by segregating their trains than by not discriminating."
But today, do you really think that a discriminating business would get so much success? The government had a role to play, and I respect how the government actually solved the problem (while I think the Booker T. Washington plan would have held more freedoms and was less forceful. Now however, there is not a looming threat that Walmart will start denying Chinese customers , and corporations are actually more sound in this matter.

"Which is why the economy is growing and unemployment is going down. "
If unemployment is going down, why are there not jobs created to back up that number? People have stopped looking.

"The housing crisis had already taken effect before 2007, so no you can't pin this on the Democrats."
I never pinned it on the Democrats. In fact I rarely do, I usually criticize the ideas that the Democratic party has, and those are usually shared by a lot of Republicans. Remember, the Housing bust was created by an artificial inflation of the market when the government "encouraged" home ownership for all Americans. A huge percentage bought homes that they could not afford, and hoses were foreclosed on. Neither party was really responsible, but Democratic principals were at work.

"You talk like one and you came out with strong praise of Ayn Rand. Whatever, I'll describe your ideology correctly when you stop abusing the term 'socialism' every 3 seconds."
Stop. This is dumb. You are making too many assumptions, and the "every 3 seconds" is a total exaggeration, written so you can make someone think I completely misused the term.
Are you going to tell me what I am? Really? There are reasons I am not libertarian, and you have no place to falsely make fodder out of me on this post. I MERELY mentioned that I like the strong idea of integrity from the (italics) movie.
Are you going to tell me I am racist too?
Oh wait....

"Not surprising that a snob like [you?] would insult the intelligence of every single hard working trade unionist. Especially a snob who is gullible and naive enough to subscribe to the Ayn Rand cult."
Careful, bud.

"Great, so you admit you're making stuff up. You admit that you have nothing to counter the fact that many of the riches corporations paid *zero* in taxes."
Yet another one who relies on blowing up even me correcting myself into me not having any credibility. All of my statements you inflate to suit your personal needs of making me look like an idiot. No one should listen to this junk.

I never said I had NO information. I merely (something you would never do) admitted that I was wrong it that I quoted the wrong number.

"You obviously haven't been paying attention. Social Security has a surplus, it is not going bankrupt."

Reality! - "Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute "one penny" to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year."

Or do you not know?

"Like socialism, you haven't the slightest clue what affirmative action does. But why should I expect someone who wants to repeal civil rights laws would have the foggiest idea about affirmative action. The existence of people like you demonstrates that AA is still strongly needed."

I really can't stand you. You tell me what I am, first of all, and you have absolutely not credibility whatsoever. I say forced, and you act like I said there was a law. I know that it is merely a policy, but I know that it is a policy that is not the most efficient in how it chooses candidates under any setting. I read this from an Indian man, for the record. But it is classic liberal to call the opponent racist as you have and say that he cares not for society.