Democrat Party

You have to admit, Obama is taking lots of blame because of Bush's decision. I'm sorry if you understood that Obama is without fault but that's not true. Obama is making some mistakes too you know.

"You have to admit, Obama is taking lots of blame because of Bush's decision"

Do you know of a specific decision or policy that Bush made, for which Obama is being blamed?

Do you know of a specific decision or policy that Bush made, for which Obama is being blamed?

I'm sorry if i'm going to be nasty with this answer but if you can't see what Bush did to the United States (bad and good btw) then why should I continue and tell you ? Uhh don't answer that please.

I want you to tell me... so that I can help you understand where your logic is flawed :).

Where is the logic in arguing with you when your mind is already set ? Lots of people have this "built-in flaw" if you ask me. I'm just telling you, Bush wasn't an angel so do your own research. i spent hours researching this stuff and in today's Internet age, it's really easy. Do your work cause I ain't gonna do yours.

That is equivalent to:

You : that is like someone saying... My code is broken it doesn't work...

Me: what error you getting...

You: I am not going to tell you... go find it yourself.

Dems are excellent at trying to speak in generics "Bush is Bad" or "Obama is good".... but when it comes to stating specifics that support their position... I almost always hear things like ... "Because that is what I feel".

You cannot argue against how someone feels.

If I use the same sense in your message I could tell you that rep are always making others work and value themselve above all else. But that's not the issue here. Sometimes, knowledge must come from ourselves which is better if you ask me.

>>You cannot argue against how someone feels.

Liberals use emotion vs common sense to make decisions.  They can't extrapolate.  


>>And don't start whining about a supermajority that Dems' never had;

Ran congress and presidency for two years.  They got everything passed they wanted.


>>the Dem party isn't in disarray,

How do you explain Bill Clinton stabbing Obama in the back each chance he gets?

@beetos

Your viewpoint : Republicans have moved to block anything Obama tries to do, lest he gets credit for anything.

My viewpoint: Republicans have moved to block anything Obama tries to do, lest he completely destroys America.

Your viewpoint: With the minority party so obstructive, nothing can be accomplished.

My viewpoint: With the minority party so obstructive, damage is minimized.

Damage is minimized????

THE F^CKING PLANE HAS CRASHED INTO THE F^CKING MOUNTAINT AND NOW YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE?

Puleeeeeze.      

Individual mandate = Republican idea.   Once championed by Obama = socialism?

Wall St. deregulation = global economic meltdown.     Wall st. reform = class warfare?

Debt ceiling debate = credit rating drop DUE TO REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM as cited by the ratings agency.

Republicans take control of the House = "Our commitment, our focus will be exclusively on job creation" = reality:  our focus will be on eliminating abortion, contraception, and women's rights.

Mitch McConnell  "Our top priority is making sure Obama is a 1 term President".  Not fixing the economy, not ending wars or fighting terrorism, not improving access to health care...

Beetos, who is the doctor that gave you the lasik rose-colored glasses?


Debt ceiling debate  = Obama adding $5 trillion dollars to the deficit, paying off unions and bankrupt solar companies, and creating 55 jobs with $111 million.


>>Mitch McConnell  "Our top priority is making sure Obama is a 1 term President".

That's the priority of most people.  I guess you could make an exception for selfish public unions, deadbeats, leeches, parasites, and others who vote for Obama b/c he looks like they do.  Obama is a radical, surrounded by other anti-American radicals.  4 more years and this country will be changed for the worse for good.




BILL CLINTON = US in a recession; extend Bush Tax cuts

B HUSSEIN OBAMA= Pass Buffett rule (which wouldn't dent the deficit and raises barely any money) for fairness, not revenue.

>>Debt ceiling debate  = Obama adding $5 trillion dollars to the deficit, paying off unions and bankrupt solar companies, and creating 55 jobs with $111 million.

I don't care if it was to paint polka dots on stop signs. The debt ceiling debate was a stupid circus. They were all playing political games and to say that either side was trying to "Do what's right" or "what's best for the country" is ridiculous.

>>"Our top priority is making sure Obama is a 1 term President".
>>That's the priority of most people.

That's the biggest sham of politics right there. To think your goal should be to deal with a person rather than an issue. You are en elected official. A servant of the public. Fix the issues and stop with your petty games because you don't like someone!

Both parties guilty of this entirely. Republicans more focused because it is at one individual but the Democrats do it as well.

>>You see, that is exactly what is wrong with your threads, cars.., I'm sorry, EricLynnWright.

All the other facts posted and you focus on his name.  Can't see the forest through the trees.


>>A servant of the public.

Obama is a servant of unions, lobbyists, and crazy radicals.
Rubio on Obama: Most 'Divisive Figure in Modern American History'


>>The debt ceiling debate was a stupid circus.

I guess it is if you don't mind being Greece.

@  sbdt8631: I saw in the first post what I was getting into with EricLynnWright. I gave him a few chances. But since his mind his already set I see no point to continue this  discussion since hatred and other bad behavior will continue here.

My suggestion is to stop this one (and stop replying since he will always shoot anyone who doesn't see HIS point of view ) here since nothing good can come out of this one like so many other supposedly discussion on politics.

ps: Ya, using bold text on his name was a shoot in the nuts just like you said, that was low...very low. And dont spend your time replying to this post since I won't post back in this one EricLynnWright...just in case.

linenchest...


>>No there not. It might seem bad right now but it was clear from the start that obama was given all the trouble when Bush left.


Obama:

My Presidency Will Be 'A One-Term Proposition' If Economy Doesn't Turn In 3 years

There you go - Obama disagrees with you.

omg, I'm replying...I hate you, I didn't hold my words. Ok ok ok. It is now clear on your case either of those 2 options (both maybe ?) really do apply to you and I say this with respect here and I don't want to piss you off but this is what i see

1. you deny the whole truth in your statements and don't include the whole story which can influence others decision of course. Last post for example. he said that almost 2-3 years ago. He also said that "...We knew this was going to take time because we've got this big, messy, tough democracy and that’s a great thing about America is that there are all these contentious ideas that are out there and we’ve got to make our case. If you really think this can be done in 1 term...somethings wrong here.

2. or you didn't do your research like I suggested you do in my first couple of post.

Look at the USA today, it's not in perfect shape, everyone that has some brain cells will admit that. They will also admit that USA needs help and can get out of the mess they are in. it just takes time. People have to be patient with these kinds of things. USA's problems cannot be fixed in 3-4 years. It's just purely impossible and I'm sorry but theres no magic fix or pill that just by a push of a button will fix everything. It's impossible. So anyone who's a president today and in the next election will be fired upon...no matter how you look at it.

Not only he inherited the "good" side of being a president but he took the whole package. It's just like someone dies and he put you on his heritage. He might left you loads of money but if he had debts, you have to deal with it.

>>All the other facts posted and you focus on his name.

All other facts posted and you had to use the Hussein sh*t.  It says a lot.

"Not only he inherited the "good" side of being a president but he took the whole package"

Really? He took the whole package????  Let's review.

>>We knew this was going to take time because we've got this big, messy, tough democracy and that’s a great thing about America is that there are all these contentious ideas that are out there and we’ve got to make our case.

They controlled all 3 branches of government for 2 years.   Everything they wanted passed was passed.

Unemployment has gone up, people have given up looking for work, and the deficit is off the charts.



buttersk...
Running against Bush worked in 2008.  Fortunately the polls are reflecting a different tone this go round.  Bill Clinton was right when he called Obama an amateur.

"I can't believe I'm going to enter this thread and I’ll probably unsub pretty quickly but everyone is missing the main point:

1:  Liberalism is a mental disorder.  No amount of therapy or medication will fix it.

Debating with one is paramount to talking quantum physics with a first grader.  They just won’t understand."


What a wonderful way to open an honest debate.    And you wonder why people won't listen to you?

>>1:  Liberalism is a mental disorder.  No amount of therapy or medication will fix it.

The rest of your comments are quite consistent with this statement.  While I respect your right to have all the opinions you stated above, they are just your opinions.  Some of us don't agree with your opinions.
Some of us think that a little more flexibility and some cooperation among people who do not necessarily agree is healthy.
Capitalizing and bolding do not make them any more correct.

Typical libs:  Speaks in vague generalities.

>>they are just your opinions

So, refute my 'opions' with fact.

Change my mind.  Convince me.

1: Did we not rise to #1 because of Capitalism quicker with more humanity and better than any other society to date?
2: Has any other model ever worked since the beginning of time?
3: Why should I pay for others bad choices or should the choice maker be responisible for themselves?

Provide counter 'facts' of your own.  Real ones: Not the ones on ABC/NBC/???

Typical lib:  Speaks in vague generalities.

>>What a wonderful way to open an honest debate.    And you wonder why people won't listen to you?

*yawn*  Reinforces my point.

At this point in time:  It is beyond any chance of a reasonable/intelligent debate with anyone claiming it is still Bushes fault...  re: Carter/Reagan.

Therefore: why bother?

*time for the physics lecture to begin*
Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena...

>>So, refute my 'opions' with fact.

Try supporting them with facts, first.  Otherwise they are just opinions, which as everyone knows are like ass......

Which one do you want facts for?

America as #1?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
US #1 in all 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_currency

However, as the United States remained the world's preeminent economic superpower, most international transactions continued to be conducted with the United States dollar, and it has remained the de facto world currency

All in 215 years.  Show me anything else out there that comes close.

Do you have a success story for Socialism?
Do you have one for the stellar success of Welfare or any entitlement program?

I would like to read them.

"I should not have to pay because you smoked for 30 years and now have health issues."

So what if someone developed health issues because they live in a state adjacent to a state which generates lots of pollution?    Would you pay then?  Should the politicians who gutted any reasonable attempts to control that pollution be held accountable?


"How did America become the #1 world super power in just 215 years"

By invading a resource rich land and reaping genocide on the native population?   With help from the French?  

"There are MANY civilizations that have tried many different styles of management.  Most have failed miserably."  

MANY of those civilizations were around much longer than 200 years.   We haven't set any records yet.   The capitalist society you allude to was created because the existing feudal system was so unfair, yet the way laws have been manipulated over the years, and the transfer of wealth we're seeing to the top 1% has us on the way back to the feudal system.   If the author of this thread had his way, we'd be there already:  only property owners can vote, debtors prisons, etc.


"I should not have to pay because you lived above your means and bought something YOU KNOW you could not afford (or were to dumb to know you could not afford)."

Never heard of predatory loans?   Do you think that everyone who buys a house should be a real estate lawyer?     The banks invented this crap, sold it as good while knowing it wasn't and betting against it.    They stood to profit from mortgage failures and therefore encouraged them.  They had tremendous power, unlimited lobbying resources, lawyers, etc yet you think that homeowners throughout the country were the ones to blame?   Hey, it's the free market, right?    

Talk about speaking in generalities - your simple accusations of guilt and blame in complex situations shows your complete lack of comprehension.


"There are jobs out there!!!  They just might not be right next door.  That is NO REASON to not work!!!"  

That's right.  You can get a part time job at Walmart with no benefits.  Probably won't pay your mortgage, which is probably under water so you can't even afford to sell your house, but it's all your own damn fault.    Do you think the high unemployment numbers Republicans keep cheering about are because people just don't want to work?

>>US #1 in all 3.

So, exactly how does that prove:

>>1:  Liberalism is a mental disorder.  No amount of therapy or medication will fix it.
>>Easy:  The constitution and rule of law.
>>My kids should not suffer because your kids are stupid and cannot keep up.
>>NOT EVERYONE THAT PARTICIPATES DESERVES A TROPHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

etc., etc. ...

You haven't proven anything.  You have quoted from scripture, stated your opinions and implied that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid.

To me, anyway, you have proven you are narrow minded.

"Do you have a success story for Socialism?
Do you have one for the stellar success of Welfare or any entitlement program?"

You seem to have drank the Fox News koolaide that Democrats are Socialists.   Having social safety nets to provide some relief against uncontrollable circumstance is hardly the same as radically changing to a different system of government.

Should the gov't not declare and help with disaster areas?   Hurricane destroyed your house and city?  Sorry about your luck buddy - just move 5 miles away and get a job!  

What about oil and corn subsidies?   Why should we pay those?   Why should we be giving subsidies to companies making THE HIGHEST PROFITS IN HISTORY?

>>Should the gov't not declare and help with disaster areas?  

To an extent no.  It's not my fault someone decides to live along the coast or below sea level and protected by a levee (New Orleans).


>>Hurricane destroyed your house and city?

That's why you have insurance.



>>What about oil and corn subsidies?  

All subsidies should end.



>>Why should we be giving subsidies to companies making THE HIGHEST PROFITS IN HISTORY?

Apple?


>>To me, anyway, you have proven you are narrow minded.

B/c he doesn't agree with you?

"B/c he doesn't agree with you? "

B/c he argues his opinion based on his opinion and hurls insults and condescension?


"That's why you have insurance."

Right.  It's pretty obvious you've never lived through a natural disaster.


"Apple?"

Cute.  They're 17th on the list, with their highest profit year coming in at more than half of  Exxon Mobile's!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses

What's the profit margin difference between apple and Exxon?

I would venture so far as to say that not all Dems are socialists.... but Obama most certainly is.

Quote from Forbes:
Obama: Favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)

When Obama talks about "fair share"... he is assuming that the RESULT of each persons effort should be equal.  THAT is socialism.

Capitalism is the idea that each person has an equal OPPORTUNITY... not equal RESULTS.

Each of us should have the freedom and the opportunity to go out and make of our lives ... as much as we can.  We should not have the burden to make sure that everyone else's lives turn out the same as our own.

From a Christian perspective... each person should be prepared to help his neighbor.  That does not mean that I believe that the goverment should take from me... and give to my neighbor.  

I believe that really encapsulates the difference between a true liberal and a true conservative.

Wow, there is a lot to respond to...  I hope I got most of it.

>>You seem to have drank the Fox News koolaide that Democrats are Socialists

Then what paradigm do you find yourself agreeing with?  Nazi?

I'll say I'm Conservative.  You?

>>Would you pay then?

Did I personally cause it?  If yes, then I should pay.  If no, why should I be penalized for something I had no control over?

>>Do you think that everyone who buys a house should be a real estate lawyer?

No but common sense works.  I don't need to know the Law to realize that I'm working at 7-Eleven and they are telling me I can afford a $400,000 house with this thing called an ARM.  And you can deduct your interest and your monthly payment will only be $12.75 after all that.
You should know what is outside your reach…  then again, obviously not.

>>Probably won't pay your mortgage, which is probably under water
Re: above:  Did you possibly buy a house you could not afford in the first place  ‘betting’ the market would continue to rise and bail you out?
Buying a home is just like the stock market: No guarantee you will get your money back.
So when the Market crashes and I lose my 401K, should the Government bail me out?

>>To me, anyway, you have proven you are narrow minded.

I'm open minded.  show me the error of my ways!

"NOT EVERYONE THAT PARTICIPATES DESERVES A TROPHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Show me where this is healthy and competition is harmful.  Success and hard work should be rewarded not just showing up and wearing the uniform.

>>Should the gov't not declare and help with disaster areas?   Hurricane destroyed your house and city?

re my comments above:  I'm not against ALL entitlements.

Acts of God, possibly but it depends.  Act of 'woe is me' or self-created then, no.

I live on a fault zone and imagine that, an earthquake destroyed my house, please buy me another one...  no way.  You chose to live there.

If there hasn't been a tornado in your town in 550 years and a freak tornado takes out your house, yes.

Now if you aren't back on your feet in say, one year, where do you draw the line?  10 years, 15?  There are 4th and 5th generation welfare families out there.  It is what they learned and there is no incentive to stop now.


>>What about oil and corn subsidies?

Where did I bring up subsidies?  lib deflection?  You all like to change points often.

>>So, exactly how does that prove:

That Capitalism, the constitution and rule of law works!  Nothing else has to date.  Leave it alone...

>>hurls condescension?

yes, yes I am.  and?  I'm just stating to all the Conservatives in this thread that debating a liberal is pointless.

all posts after mine just seem to keep proving my point.

butters

http:#a:38059312

AMEN.  They just don't seem to understand those simple concepts.   Hence my initial 'condescension':  Debating with one...

Johnny:  WAAAAHHH Mommy, Timmy has ice cream.
Mommy: Timmy, give some to Johnny, right now.
*Timmy and Johnny are not brothers*

"When Obama talks about "fair share"... he is assuming that the RESULT of each persons effort should be equal.  THAT is socialism."

That's your (and Forbes ) interpretation, and it's wrong.  No one, NO ONE, especially not Obama is saying that everyone's lives should turn out the same regardless.    That's just nonsense.

Spreading the wealth around means that you were fortunate enough to be successful, and part of that success is due to the opportunities this nation provides.    Having such success, you are required to give back to the nation that provided you those opportunities.   You seem to think that each man is an island, each successful man did everything on his own, but that's not the case.    The biggest determining factor in how much wealth you will accumulate in your life is how much wealth your parents had ( or didn't have ).    Yes there are exceptions, but this is the general reality that most folks face.

We've always had a progressive tax, and the rates have fluctuated.   Lately, they're at their lowest in modern times, and our debt has exploded since that change.    Raising the top rate a couple of per centage points,  to where they were a decade ago, and changing the rules on the rates for investment income and other loopholes is a far cry from a Socialist system of government.

>>Having such success, you are required to give back to the nation that provided you those opportunities.

Required?  What is that if not Socialism, Communism?

>>he biggest determining factor in how much wealth you will accumulate in your life is how much wealth your parents had ... but this is the general reality that most folks face.

Nonsense.  If so:  Once on welfare, always on welfare then!  Self-fulfilling prophecy.

That belief is the problem:  people are not breaking the cycle and there is no incentive to do so.

>>and our debt has exploded since that change

It exploded because of spending not income!

>> Raising the top rate a couple of per centage points,

Will do nothing.  Spending will still exceed income.

Spreading the wealth around means that you were fortunate enough to be successful, and part of that success is due to the opportunities this nation provides

Fortunate had nothing to do with it.  (unless you are talking about lottery winners).

Having such success, you are required to give back to the nation that provided you those opportunities.

--Yep.... according to socialists.

>>Having such success, you are required to give back to the nation that provided you those opportunities.
>>Required?  What is that if not Socialism, Communism?

I would call it paying taxes.  That is something people do when they live in a society that supports certain services that are available to all citizens.

"Then what paradigm do you find yourself agreeing with?  Nazi?

I'll say I'm Conservative.  You?"

Based on that response, I'd say your an @sshole.  

"Required?  What is that if not Socialism, Communism?"

It's the Democratic government we've all been living under all of our lives.  Suddenly, because we have a Democrat President, it's Socialism?   This is BS - just partisan mudslinging and nothing more.

You guys have demonstrated time and again that you don't know what Socialism even means, nor how society works, so how about contributing something meaningful to the discussioni for a change?


"It exploded because of spending not income!"  

Spending on what exactly?   A war with an oil rich nation that posed no threat to us?   Tax breaks for everyone while not cutting back elsewhere?  

You're saying raising the tax rates won't generate revenue?    I suppose water isn't wet any more, and the sky isn't blue?  2 + 2 no longer equals 4?

>>You're saying raising the tax rates won't generate revenue?  

Obama said that - well he conceded that higher rates equate to lower tax revenue.  

See the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDSFMY3ijcE

>>I would call it paying taxes.

Got it!  The Tax overhaul is another debate:  It needs to be the same for all:  Equal.

>>supports certain services that are available to all citizens.

There is the issue:  The services being provided today are NOT available to all citizens.

Defense:  Yes.
Freedom: Yes.
Legislation/Law: Yes (for the most part but that is a different thread).

The divide is everything else that Government has no business in.

Why can't I get foodstamps and a free cell phone?

Before you harp on it again:  I'm not against a help-up when it is deserved.  Just don't tell me you are entitled to it and demand it.

Overall:  we all have the same opportunities.

Socioeconomic and environment have a little to play with it but no where near what the left claims it does.

for example:
My wife spent 6 years in college to get a Masters.  All student loans.  No handouts.  10+ years to pay them off.  For quite a while, her payments were more than our mortgage (remember, I bought a house I could afford).

What is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing?

Can't get a loan?  GI-Bill.  Serve your country, get an education.

Can't serve, look for scholorships/grants/???.  If you have the drive and desire, there is a way!

>>Based on that response, I'd say your an @sshole.  

hmmm.... one from the left will not go on record...  this surprise anyone?

lib tactic #1:  Resort to name calling!

Bet you'll call me a racist next!  

spin, deflect and attempt to divide.  We'll see how this works in November...

>>A war with an oil rich nation that posed no threat to us?

Seriously?  Still blaming Bush? I could post CBO numbers but you won't believe them...

>>You're saying raising the tax rates won't generate revenue?

Nice liberal spin.  I said it will do nothing to reduce the dept.

Not that you believe this but the numbers are out there everywhere: raising taxes, reduces income to Government.  lowering taxes, raises income to Government.

Let's try this:  If I lower your tax rate and you have more money in every paycheck, do you save more or spend more?

I'll answer for you:  You spend more.
This increases demand on goods and services.
This starts to depelete supply.
Providers need to keep up with demand.
How is this done?  Hiring/Expansion!
Which leads to what?
More people in the work-force...
This leads to what?  Maybe more taxes collected....

Now run the opposite:
I increase your tax rate, less money to spend.
No more dinners at Outback.
Maybe that car of yours will last 5 more years...
etc...


I would be happy to read anything to can post to support your position.  Well, that isn't from the Cartoon Network.

"lib tactic #1:  Resort to name calling!"

Projectionism - typical conservative defense.   I was reacting to your condescension and name calling.   Let me remind you of your first post:

"I can't believe I'm going to enter this thread and I’ll probably unsub pretty quickly but everyone is missing the main point:

1:  Liberalism is a mental disorder.  No amount of therapy or medication will fix it.

Debating with one is paramount to talking quantum physics with a first grader.  They just won’t understand."

So with all due respect, go f^cuk yourself!


Taxes have been this low for a decade - how has that worked out?  

"Overall:  we all have the same opportunities.

Socioeconomic and environment have a little to play with it but no where near what the left claims it does.

My wife spent 6 years in college to get a Masters.  All student loans.  No handouts.  10+ years to pay them off.  For quite a while, her payments were more than our mortgage (remember, I bought a house I could afford)."

I got mine - screw everybody else!      

Tuition has skyrocketed - it's going to take todays generation a lot longer than 10 years to pay for the same education your wife got.   Plus, she must have had the opportunity to go to a school - a lot of folks don't.   You seem to think that it's all a level playing field and everyone who is poor chooses to be that way.  This is far removed from reality.   You can beat your chest all you want about how hard you worked, but the truth is you probably had some kind of help or opportunities that made a difference for you.  Were you born on welfare?  If not, how do you know how hard or easy it is to change your station in life?  You disregard the studies that show how hard it is to change class levels, so it's just your narrow opinion you're basing this on.

Here's a question - has the debt EVER reduced?   Under any President, party, or tax rate?  It seems to have been going up for my whole life.  

What's changed recently is the radical transfer of wealth to the top 1%.   Are they really working that much harder than the other 99%?   Or have our economic policies been changed to favor those with wealth?

I thought you would take away my points lol

EricLynnWright,
Thanks for the points!  This was entertaining...

So much so, I think I'll continue...

>>I was reacting to your condescension and name calling

What name did I call you?

>>So with all due respect, go f^cuk yourself!

Would you be jealous if I actually could or would you make the Gov't take part of mine and give it to you because we were not equal?

>>had the opportunity to go to a school - a lot of folks don't

Who?  Specifics please, not more generalities!!!

Show me someone that wants to go and does the necessary work, and I'll find them a school that will take them!

"What name did I call you?"

I posted your comments that I was referring to just above my response to those comments.

If you can't acknowledge the facts of what you yourself said, in this very question, on this very page where it exists right in front of your own eyes,  it's clearly pointless to debate anything with you.

>>I posted your comments that I was referring to just above my response to those comments.

You are SOOOOoooooo proving my point:  Please point to anything I posted that calls YOU, beetos, a name.

Please point to where I called ANYONE a name?

I can point to YOU specifically calling me an @sshole.  re http:#a38059670.

You again challenged several of my talking points and I asked for supporting information.  Again, you provided none.

To ask again:
1:  Where did I call anyone a name?
2: Who does not have the ability to pursue an education to advance themselves?

Let's try to stay on point this time...

See my above post.  And the one above that.  And the one above that.  

Debating with you is useless, as  you feign ignorance to your own ignorance!


It's no wonder you have the political views you do;  you have no idea how to relate to society.  You are SOooooo proving my point.

*yawn*...  rhetoric with no substance...  cannot win, divert...

I've read all the posts.  I see nowhere that I called anyone a name.

The education debate is brand new:  You stated that not everyone has the opportunity.

All I am asking is you you to support your position:  Who doesn't have the opportunity?

What you are doing is doing "Look over there, proof"  "See, I'm right!".

Please:  Chapter and verse...

>>I thought you would take away my points lol

What's a party without liberals?  Wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed.


>>Thanks for the points!  This was entertaining...So much so, I think I'll continue...

You're keeping Beetos out of trouble and off the streets.  :)

>>Thanks for the points!  This was entertaining...So much so, I think I'll continue...

Welcome to the party. I'm sure we will have many 'interesting' discussions if you choose to stay.