Republicans against Bush

[MachNU]

Can you even put a paragraph together? So lets see whats on the chopping block. Loss of privacy: ( Patriot Act ) Women's right to control her own body: ( Soon to be gone Roe vs. Wade) The right for us not to have any one religion dictate political policy and rational thought: ( Seperation of Church and State disappearing) ..... I'll list more if you want me too but you can benifit from a little reading. Rubbie!

HAHAHAHAAHA Can you even follow directions?

I asked you to give me examples all you did was give me some statments!

You want to sit there and call me ignorant when when i asked you to prove yourself, you did the most Demorcratic Liberal move and didnt answer the question but with a statment. A counteroffer you will. Now with the small bit of information you have me about your first defence which wa womens rights with the case of Roe vs. Wade.

So to set this off since you really dont know what a debate is i will help you. Now jsut try and follow as i "Debate" your ignorant answers with proof ( since i wont dance around the answer like you have )!

The Patriot Act since you brought it up and i dont think you have a clue what it is i will help you. ( Oh heres my back-up for it http://www.cdt.org/security/011031summary.shtml for those who want to read it themselves. ) The Patriot Act is something that does nothing more than PROTECT your rights. People complain and bitch about how there information that is sent all around the internet every waking second of the day is unprotected from people who like to steal that information. Well the Patriot Act is being made to help Internet providers strengthen there firewalls and keep hackers out so that everything you do on the internet is secure. It also is helping the FBI CIA NSA or any other top lvl organization track down cyber criminals and terroriost or jstu any other joker screwing around with there computer, to be able to trap trace them and find there signal faster to get them behind bars. So to me that is protecting my right to privacy not trying to let everyone see it.

Now you said Roe vs. Wade ( for the people who want every bit of information http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ )

This case is nothing more than setting in motion up to today all the cases against aborations or whether it is right or wrong. That had nothing to do with womens rights, but it had to do with ethical rights. Which i cant argue against you becuase Ethical Rights is based on the person ethical decisions. But back then this lady wanted a aboration but was not given one becuase back then there had to be a direct medical reason that was at rick to the mother. But becuase the constitution was to vague the law was void becuase it didnt say yes or no to direct medical and bodily harm. So that has nothign to do with womens rights, since i the fact it is 32 years old and today things have changed.

Now onto your last few sentences where i ahve no clue what you mean since it has no meaning, but i do get what you say by Division of Church and State and that is an arguement that has been going on since Roman / Catholic times. Today it is a good thing that church adn state stay devided, but with this great nation being the land of the free, people are free to have all the religions in the world in this nation. Now since there are so many religions and so many coinsiding with each other, or course there is going to be some argument. Now i may be wrong on clarifying then tell me what you meant.

Now if you would I would love to hear your rebuttle.

Also i dont care about grammer errors or what not you get the jist and then move on.

[djmaddmartin]

Well we know you can post up links:

But all your links still don't debunk what I have said. Why don't you watch the Daily Show and lighten up. Bill O'Riley is on the show right now and its funny as shit. Its funny when he can't get in the last word.

I can post up links too but lets not waste time when we both know your not interested.

True the patriot act does good things but it leaves the door open for abuses dumb ass.

And lets not get going with the right wing church in this country ( not other countries!). They are the dog you have let out sacrificing our liberties to achieve conservative objectives. And when it can't get what it wants from the Republicans it will bite the hand that let it out.

And its my prediction that women will loose the right to choose within the next 10yrs. Which will lead to loss for many other rights. Don't believe me, just wait and see.

And we all know that Chritianity is the dominant religion in the US. But thats because the Puritans left! LOL So maybee you have a thing with this "if you don't like it leave".

You may be on to something, since Liberals and Democrats that are registered voters have a higher level of education and income than Convervatives and Republican registered voters. Don't believe me look it up. So if we all left it would be interesting. We could turn the US into the worlds largest armed McDonalds!

[malfeas99]

You may be on to something, since Liberals and Democrats that are registered voters have a higher level of education and income than Convervatives and Republican registered voters. Don't believe me look it up. So if we all left it would be interesting. We could turn the US into the worlds largest armed McDonalds!

Really?

Post up your proof. And I hope it includes the 'list of IQ per state' with all the high IQ's being blue states, so we can all laugh at you when I post the snopes article debunking that, as well as any other 'evidence' you have.

Income I can possibly believe, given that most democratic voters live in places with higher costs of living, and therefore tend to have more money (not that they're really 'wealthier', when you adjust for PPP), but then again, you have the lower 40% or more income tax bracket overwhelmingly voting Democrat (gee, wonder why that is). Also, it's known that the average personal contribution to the democratic party is much higher than the average contribution to the republican party. What that tells me is that there's a lot of limousine liberals and guilty celebrities footing the bill, though that's merely supposition.

But education? Please. Outside the halls of acedemia, you'd be hard pressed to make that one stick. But it'll be fun to see you try, because you need to believe this in order to feel like an intellectually and morally superior human being, when so far all I've seen spewing out of your mouth is just another brand of collectivist fascism. No thanks.

P.S.: You're out of your freaking mind if you actually believe abortion will ever become illegal again. Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, that's not even CLOSE to the same as it being abolished.

P.P.S.: It took me 5 minutes of looking to find this snipped from a report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

Generally, slightly more Americans consider themselves a Democrat than Republican. Still, about a third of Americans identified themselves as a Democratic supporter with a slightly smaller percentage as Republican. The rest, again about a third, supported a minor party, didn't know their partisan affiliation or call themselves independent.

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Because education levels track income levels, there aren't many surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican. Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.

Oops, you lose, again. Life's so much easier without me here to expose your stupid self-fellating lies, isn't it? Too bad, suck it up.

[djmaddmartin]

http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

Or if your too lazy to go to the link here is a screen shot:

[malfeas99]

http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

Or if your too lazy to go to the link here is a screen shot:

Even in your own screenshot, it's ONLY the graduate specs that throw the trend (i.e. more education means more identifying towards republican instead of democrat). I specifically said that the halls of acedemia throw the curve, 'graduate' includes every career student, every insulated, idealistic professor, etc. I don't have enough data to tell you whether that makes up the difference, but those demographics are very strongly democrat traditionally. How and why that's the case can be an interesting point of research and debate, however, I can assure you it does not mean that 'all smart people vote Democrat'. I'm far smarter than you, and I'd string myself up by my testicles before I voted Democrat. Luckily for you, I'd do the same before I voted Republican also.

I notice you didn't mention anything about income. Maybe you thought that because, on the macro level, states with higher average incomes tend to vote democrat meant that people who made more money voted democrat. Looks like someone hasn't taken any coursework in macro- vs. micro- economics, as well as statistical analysis. Oops.

P.S.: This study is a cumulative from 1972 to 2000... which includes the vietnam war. That in and of itself could have skewed things a certain way. If you want a better idea, I'd get a smaller sample size, or at least, if you're interested, compare party identification during times of war vs relative peace, or different decades.

[MachNU]

Generally, slightly more Americans consider themselves a Democrat than Republican. Still, about a third of Americans identified themselves as a Democratic supporter with a slightly smaller percentage as Republican. The rest, again about a third, supported a minor party, didn't know their partisan affiliation or call themselves independent.

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Because education levels track income levels, there aren't many surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican. Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.

LOL i just had to put this in to coinside with what this person said but.....

But when he said that most lower lower income people vote democrat...i can tell you why that is. This is not meant to afend anyone but.... if you notice most lower income people are black and hispanic....and also whites are also in there but the only reason they vote democrat is for really one reason. if you ever wathc presidental elections right before they happen you will notice that the democrats play one key card. They always sit there and speak right to the lower income people about how the rebuplicans are trying to take away there health care and welfare from them and put them out on the streets. But that in some way is true becuase most lower income people use welfare as a way for free money and not work as hard.

I mean this not to afend anyone but it is true. i will grant that there are alot of people out there who NEED welfare but there are some outt here who use it for free money and in no way try to better themselves to make more money.

just my

[man]

This is not meant to afend anyone but.... if you notice most lower income people are black and hispanic....and also whites are also in there but the only reason they vote democrat is for really one reason. if you ever wathc presidental elections right before they happen you will notice that the democrats play one key card. They always sit there and speak right to the lower income people about how the rebuplicans are trying to take away there health care and welfare from them and put them out on the streets. But that in some way is true becuase most lower income people use welfare as a way for free money and not work as hard.

Being Cuban I agree with this completely. My family was one of the most respected and well known in Cuba and we left it all behind to come to America. My Grandfather went from being one of the wealthiest persons in the Cuba to one of the poorest in America, yet he still was Republican. He worked his ass off in the sugar cane fields of south Florida and earned my family a respectable life. He didn't rely on welfare or any of that. What I have realized is many of the Liberals in America are looking for the easy way out. Oh and we may associate ourselves with a president who was a C student, but you (djmaddmartin) associate yourself with people who believe either:

A) George Bush has a weather machine he uses to create hurricanes to attack his own country.

B) George Bush let the hurricane hit without response because he doesn't like black people.

C) The levees in NO were sabotaged by the government to kill blacks.

D) There is a "Mother Wheel" in outer space to which Louis Farrakhan traveled to have a conference with other black leaders about Rita.

And you call us ignorant and uneducated?

[malfeas99]

Being Cuban I agree with this completely. My family was one of the most respected and well known in Cuba and we left it all behind to come to America. My Grandfather went from being one of the wealthiest persons in the Cuba to one of the poorest in America, yet he still was Republican. He worked his ass off in the sugar cane fields of south Florida and earned my family a respectable life. He didn't rely on welfare or any of that. What I have realized is many of the Liberals in America are looking for the easy way out. Oh and we may associate ourselves with a president who was a C student, but you (djmaddmartin) associate yourself with people who believe either:

A) George Bush has a weather machine he uses to create hurricanes to attack his own country.

B) George Bush let the hurricane hit without response because he doesn't like black people.

C) The levees in NO were sabotaged by the government to kill blacks.

D) There is a "Mother Wheel" in outer space to which Louis Farrakhan traveled to have a conference with other black leaders about Rita.

And you call us ignorant and uneducated?

I wonder why they would have left the Communist Paradise of Cuba under the Benevolent People's Leader Fidel Castro, especially if he was in one of the wealthiest and most well-known families, to toil in the evil oppressive capitalist regime of the US! Don't you know Castro gives everyone free health care and just doubled everyone's minimum wages to almost $10 a MONTH!

Sorry, I was channeling a college leftist there.

Do you ever have to slap them when they talk about how awesome Cuba is?

Also: Tell me who that is in your sig and where I can find more. QUICKLY, MACH SCHNELL

[man]

Tell me who that is in your sig and where I can find more. QUICKLY, MACH SCHNELL

I wish I knew...

[MachNU]

I wonder why they would have left the Communist Paradise of Cuba under the Benevolent People's Leader Fidel Castro, especially if he was in one of the wealthiest and most well-known families, to toil in the evil oppressive capitalist regime of the US! Don't you know Castro gives everyone free health care and just doubled everyone's minimum wages to almost $10 a MONTH!

Sorry, I was channeling a college leftist there.

Do you ever have to slap them when they talk about how awesome Cuba is?

Also: Tell me who that is in your sig and where I can find more. QUICKLY, MACH SCHNELL

I dont understand is this a stab at him or what? Or are you agreeing?

[TIGERJC]

But that in some way is true becuase most lower income people use welfare as a way for free money and not work as hard.

I mean this not to afend anyone but it is true. i will grant that there are alot of people out there who NEED welfare but there are some outt here who use it for free money and in no way try to better themselves to make more money.

just my [/QUOTE]
make up your mind, a small percentage of ppl on welfare miss use it. i cant stand to hear ppl talk about how we should take away welfare and low income housing. as a christian i would help out my fellow man, b/c i know this world is hard and not everybody can make 40k and over a year. remember if a lot of these ppl on welfare didnt get this help they would have to steal and more just to survive. our country wastes billions of dollars on bullshit projects, so i dont mind if ppl get money from the gov't, a lot of them have a tough life and this helps some what to eventually get them off welfare

[TranceDJ06]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051024/...urricane_wilma


Is the Cat. 3 Storm Wilma that is going to hit FLA, going to cause Gasoline prices to go back up? or is it going to be Bush's fault!? :confused:

[Jaimecbr900]

make up your mind, a small percentage of ppl on welfare miss use it. i cant stand to hear ppl talk about how we should take away welfare and low income housing. as a christian i would help out my fellow man, b/c i know this world is hard and not everybody can make 40k and over a year. remember if a lot of these ppl on welfare didnt get this help they would have to steal and more just to survive. our country wastes billions of dollars on bullshit projects, so i dont mind if ppl get money from the gov't, a lot of them have a tough life and this helps some what to eventually get them off welfare

Small percentage? You may wanna check in a different source then.

Welfare and other Gov't programs have been a cespool of abuse since it's inception. It breeds lazyness. Yes, SOME people need the programs TEMPORARILY, but there are vast overwhelming majorities that use these systems as their only means of income. Perfectly healthy people mind you. Completely able to work. They CHOOSE not to because the "benefits" they get from the Gov't are better for them than having to EARN IT working like everyone else.

I get so mad when I see these people constantly on TV shows and in print talking about how they DON'T work because they are on "disability" or have noone to "take care of the kids" so they "stay" home with them.......Only to then find out their "disability" is "back pain" or a "lazy eye" or my personal favorite "STRESS". You are permanently disabled because you have "STRESS"????? That would mean that EVERYBODY should be disabled then, huh? We all have STRESS. Most of us just DEAL with it and move on. I'm so tired of lazy people. You see a lot of them with a cell phone, but no job. $100 tennis shoes, but no job. Expensive wheels on the car, but no job. 6 kids, and no job. I'm sick of it. It's about personal responsibiliy and priorities.

This is the only country in the world that REWARDS lazyness. Of course you're not going to go look for a job when you can sit at home and watch TV all day and STILL get paid what you would if you worked. Why would you?

Put a limit on the amount of time someone can draw out w/o putting anything in. Put more people on the ground, knocking on doors, and busting people that have big screens in their living room but claim they can't work. Make people fend for themselves and not only are doing something good for them, but also for the country that is being sucked dry and putting some of it's own programs in BANKRUPTCY because of abuse.

Those are my .

[slowwrx]

Really?

Post up your proof. And I hope it includes the 'list of IQ per state' with all the high IQ's being blue states, so we can all laugh at you when I post the snopes article debunking that, as well as any other 'evidence' you have.

Income I can possibly believe, given that most democratic voters live in places with higher costs of living, and therefore tend to have more money (not that they're really 'wealthier', when you adjust for PPP), but then again, you have the lower 40% or more income tax bracket overwhelmingly voting Democrat (gee, wonder why that is). Also, it's known that the average personal contribution to the democratic party is much higher than the average contribution to the republican party. What that tells me is that there's a lot of limousine liberals and guilty celebrities footing the bill, though that's merely supposition.

But education? Please. Outside the halls of acedemia, you'd be hard pressed to make that one stick. But it'll be fun to see you try, because you need to believe this in order to feel like an intellectually and morally superior human being, when so far all I've seen spewing out of your mouth is just another brand of collectivist fascism. No thanks.

P.S.: You're out of your freaking mind if you actually believe abortion will ever become illegal again. Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, that's not even CLOSE to the same as it being abolished.

P.P.S.: It took me 5 minutes of looking to find this snipped from a report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

Generally, slightly more Americans consider themselves a Democrat than Republican. Still, about a third of Americans identified themselves as a Democratic supporter with a slightly smaller percentage as Republican. The rest, again about a third, supported a minor party, didn't know their partisan affiliation or call themselves independent.

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Because education levels track income levels, there aren't many surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican. Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.

Oops, you lose, again. Life's so much easier without me here to expose your stupid self-fellating lies, isn't it? Too bad, suck it up.

That was truly awesome. Truly awesome.

I really dont feel like jumping into this little dog fight right now.

Matt

[Elrichthain]

You want to sit there and call me ignorant when when i asked you to prove yourself, you did the most Demorcratic Liberal move and didnt answer the question but with a statment. A counteroffer you will. Now with the small bit of information you have me about your first defence which wa womens rights with the case of Roe vs. Wade.

So to set this off since you really dont know what a debate is i will help you. Now jsut try and follow as i "Debate" your ignorant answers with proof ( since i wont dance around the answer like you have )!

The Patriot Act since you brought it up and i dont think you have a clue what it is i will help you. ( Oh heres my back-up for it http://www.cdt.org/security/011031summary.shtml for those who want to read it themselves. ) The Patriot Act is something that does nothing more than PROTECT your rights. People complain and bitch about how there information that is sent all around the internet every waking second of the day is unprotected from people who like to steal that information. Well the Patriot Act is being made to help Internet providers strengthen there firewalls and keep hackers out so that everything you do on the internet is secure. It also is helping the FBI CIA NSA or any other top lvl organization track down cyber criminals and terroriost or jstu any other joker screwing around with there computer, to be able to trap trace them and find there signal faster to get them behind bars. So to me that is protecting my right to privacy not trying to let everyone see it.

Now you said Roe vs. Wade ( for the people who want every bit of information http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ )

This case is nothing more than setting in motion up to today all the cases against aborations or whether it is right or wrong. That had nothing to do with womens rights, but it had to do with ethical rights. Which i cant argue against you becuase Ethical Rights is based on the person ethical decisions. But back then this lady wanted a aboration but was not given one becuase back then there had to be a direct medical reason that was at rick to the mother. But becuase the constitution was to vague the law was void becuase it didnt say yes or no to direct medical and bodily harm. So that has nothign to do with womens rights, since i the fact it is 32 years old and today things have changed.

Now onto your last few sentences where i ahve no clue what you mean since it has no meaning, but i do get what you say by Division of Church and State and that is an arguement that has been going on since Roman / Catholic times. Today it is a good thing that church adn state stay devided, but with this great nation being the land of the free, people are free to have all the religions in the world in this nation. Now since there are so many religions and so many coinsiding with each other, or course there is going to be some argument. Now i may be wrong on clarifying then tell me what you meant.

Wow. You can't believe how releived I am to hear that this isn't "real" and instead just "joking." For a minute I thought people would take these statements to heart.

Stop throwing obscenities around because it makes you look that much more unintelligent.