Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
We are the champions




(6 votes) (report abuse)
|
Yes and
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
When the lower incomers outnumber the wealthy, they'll get their wealth away from them which seems be to be the ultimate goal. Then what? It won't matter who elects who. |
|
|
Republicans
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (5 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| are the most misunderstood folks I know of. President Lincoln - a republican set the black man free. President Johnson and his great society put them back into slavery. | |
|
RE: Republicans
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Sinbad - please elaborate. | ||
|
RE: Republicans
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
The Party of Lincoln in the 1860s has as much resemblance to the modern day G.O.P. as the Democratic party of 1860s has to the Democrats of today. That is to say, zero, nada, zilch. I also await your elaboration on the above observations. I am pretty sure I know where you want to go but who knows, maybe you will surprise me. |
||
|
this is a required field
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (5 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Los Angeles and Detroit - the two biggest holes in the country, people fleeing continually. The pride and joy, the capitals of Democratic power. Democrats want people poor people to get money and only the Republicans to give it to them. |
|
|
RE: this is a required field
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
RightOn, I agree. Though actually, the elitist democrats( and democrat idealists grounded in fantasy) want the poor people to get money from the government only "if they qualify" and after it has been taken from the taxpayers and diminished through layers of government bureaucracy. So the end result is they get a few pennies on the dollar, after much paperwork and a dehumanizing process where they are given something for doing nothing but feel humiliated. Republicans are natural targets for tax dollars because they actually work! The democrats demonize the Republicans as being evil, because their philosophy encourages success and independence and runs counter to their agenda of maintaining control by maintaining a large class of people dependent on the government. Peace |
||
|
RE: this is a required field
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Ya, Orwell was more prophetic than anyone realized. I just wish things would blow up, rather than a slow decay until the day we have Ministries of this and that... | ||
|
i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
the following is what you're postulating, right? --- Premise: Since poor people vote for Democrats, then Democrats who wish to remain in power have a vested interest in keeping the electorate full of poor people. Premise: Many poor areas in past and present are largely Democratic, and many of these poor areas continue to be poor. Conclusion: Democrats keep the poor down. The poor should not vote for the Democratic Party, instead they should vote for Republican Party. |
|
|
RE: i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
xfile, Not quite right. Peace |
||
|
RE: i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Scully, You watched too many X-files episodes. Terrible show btw. You're missing the point, try to keep up. |
||
|
RE: i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
OK, well how far off am I? If my summary came off as sounding overly-blunt, it wasn't an effort to put words in your mouth, just an attempt to consolidate the premises of your conclusion. One thing I should admit is a mistake by oversimplifying your conclusion (apologies) - I think your conclusion was closer to "The Republican party is the party that can both benefit the poor AND achieve the goal of winning elections." This is - at best - a prediction of the future, since US Census Data on poverty rates presents a much less convincing picture. Regardless, none of your conclusions are "logically dictated". You should look up "inductive reasoning". And you should know that assertions do not equal facts. And you should cite evidence that people switch parties when they rise from one socioeconomic level to a higher one (possibly the biggest premise of your argument). And you should get a handbook for writers. I often refer to my old standby from college days, Simon & Schuster's 3rd Edition (available for $20 here). |
||
|
Your difficulties started with the words, "I think."
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Xfile, You need to look up the word, "extraneous." Peace |
|
|
RE: Your difficulties started with the words, "I think."
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
once again, you choose not to defend your stance, this time choosing instead to go after two words in the subject line of my comment. apparently you have nothing to say in regards to further explaining your "logically dictated" assertions. why would you think i need to look up "extraneous"? because i forgot to mention the several extraneous points in your post that essentially undermine the very conclusion you attempt to come to? i can only spend so much time dissecting your nonsense. it's child's play really. |
||