I vote Democrat

[hamster]

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s okay if our federal government borrows $85 Billion every single month.

I vote Democrat because I care about the children … but saddling them with trillions of dollars of debt to pay for my bloated leftist government is okay.

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s better to pay billions of dollars to people who hate us rather than drill for our own oil, because it might upset some endangered beetle or gopher.

I vote Democrat because I believe it is okay if liberal activist judges rewrite the Constitution to suit some fringe kooks, who would otherwise never get their agenda past the voters.

I vote Democrat because I believe that corporate America should not be allowed to make profits for themselves or their shareholders. They need to break even and give the rest to the federal government for redistribution.

I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted, so long as we keep all of the murderers on death row alive.

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s okay if my Nobel Peace Prize winning President uses drones to assassinate people, as long as we don’t use torture.

I vote Democrat because I believe people, who can’t accurately tell us if it will rain on Friday, can predict the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Chevy Volt.

I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is not as important as preventing people from being offended.

I vote Democrat because I believe the oil companies’ profit of 3% on a gallon of gas is obscene, but the federal government taxing that same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t obscene.

I vote Democrat because I believe a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental authority ….. but sex education, condom distribution and multiculturalism are all values-neutral.

I vote Democrat because I agonize over threats to the natural environment from CO2, acid rain and toxic waste ….. but I am totally oblivious of the threats to our social environment from pornography, promiscuity and family dissolution.

I vote Democrat because I believe lazy, uneducated stoners should have just as big a say in running our country as entrepreneurs who risk everything and work 70 hours per week.

I vote Democrat because I don’t like guns ….. so no one else should be allowed to own one.

I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy.

I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between judicial leniency and surging crime rates.

I vote Democrat because I believe you don’t need an ID to vote but you do to buy beer.

I vote Democrat because I believe marriage is obsolete, except for homosexuals.

I vote Democrat because I think AIDS is spread by insufficient funding.

I vote Democrat because I think “fairness” is far more important than freedom.

I vote Democrat because I think an “equal outcome” is far more important than equal opportunity.

I vote democrat because I would rather hide in a class room while others fight for my freedom.

I vote democrat because I’m not smart enough to own a gun and I need someone else to protect me.

I vote democrat because I would rather have free stuff than freedom.

And lastly, I vote Democrat because I’m convinced that government programs are the solution to the human condition, NOT freedom.

 

[coupon]

at least you vote

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

I only vote Dem for the free stuff. The rest of that stuff is over my head.

 

[Steelr4evr]

mmmm hope& change...taxation, regulation and confiscation. Forward comrades!

 

[21STEELERS21]

I vote republican because I want the wealthy to own 95% of my country.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

I vote Libertarian because I don't believe the R's or D's are interested in fixing this mess.

 

[Vincent]

I vote republican because I want the wealthy to own 95% of my country.

Then you waste your vote...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenh...d-the-democrats-become-the-party-of-the-rich/
1/08/2014 @ 2:42PM
How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?

If you brought back either of the Roosevelts—Teddy or Franklin—from the grave, the most astonishing thing they would find is that the “malefactors of great wealth” have become the benefactors of today’s liberalism, and Democrats have become the party of the rich. In the economic crisis of the 1930s, the rich hated FDR. Most of today’s rich love Barack Obama—so much so that Washington D.C. area airports ran out of space to handle all of the private jets flying in the well-heeled for both of his inaugurals. Forget the “limousine liberals” of the 1960s and 1970s, sending their own kids to private schools while advocating forced busing for everyone else; behold today’s burgeoning class of “Gulfstream liberals,” who jet about the globe while fretting about global warming.

What accounts for this astonishing state of affairs, and what does it mean for our politics in this age of supposed concern over economic inequality?

To be sure, labor unions (along with trial lawyers) still provide the majority of the Democratic Party’s campaign funds and organizational muscle on election day, but it is the super rich of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, combined with the super rich of Hollywood, who command the priority attention of Democratic Party leaders these days. Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles. President Obama doesn’t go to union halls to host fundraisers; he goes to posh Wall Street townhomes, the Hollywood hills, or to Tom Steyer’s house in Pacific Heights. Steyer, a billionaire investor and wannabe George Soros, is the perfect model of today’s rich liberal, and shows where the balance of power on the Left rests today. Organized labor wants the Keystone pipeline built; Steyer, who imbibes deeply the green Kool Aid, is adamantly against Keystone. Note who Obama is siding with.

Yes, but haven’t many of the leading plutocrats, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, embraced higher income taxes? Yes, they have, but one important fact has escaped notice: higher income tax rates will not touch the bulk of the fortunes of today’s plutocrats, for the simple reason that the great bulk of the accumulated wealth of Gates, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street consists of appreciated asset values—not ordinary income. Few seem to be aware that most of this wealth has never been taxed, and in the case of Buffett and Gates, who are taking advantage of the charitable foundation laws, will never be taxed. Even a return to Paul Krugman’s nirvana of 90 percent marginal income tax rates of the 1950s would do little to reduce the wealth gap in the nation.

At a time when the Democratic Party is moving leftward, away from Bill Clinton’s relatively centrist economic outlook, what explains the growth in the ranks of super-rich liberals? (Or, to flip the Thomas Frank title, what’s the matter with Connecticut?) It is worth noting that many of today’s leading liberal super-rich are not heirs of fortunes, like Stewart Mott and various Rockefellers of previous decades, whose liberalism could be attributed to personal guilt over unearned wealth. Most of today’s super rich liberals are financiers and entrepreneurs, like Google founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin. Liberal guilt is not entirely absent from the mindset of the new rich, as can be seen especially in the mindless mantra that the rich have an obligation to “give back,” as though they “took” something in creating wealth by serving the marketplace with dazzling innovations like computer software and internet marketplaces.

There are several parts to this story, but perhaps the most significant is the presumption of the new rich today that they’re simply smarter (look at how fast I got rich?, they think), and today’s elitist, technocratic liberalism appeals to their superficial intellectual vanity. As a one-time critic of the new super rich once put it, “they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured with a high SAT score.” (That critic was Barack Obama, in The Audacity of Hope.)

The dependence—if not slavishness—of Democrats on the new super rich is best revealed by the dog that isn’t barking in the current liberal crusade against economic inequality: where is the call for a straight up wealth tax? Where is today’s Huey Long, who in 1935 proposed that no one should be allowed to keep any wealth beyond $50 million—or perhaps, he suggested, only $10 million. Whatever the figure, Long said, “it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.”

Where is the voice of Huey Long in today’s supposedly populist liberalism? Long’s $50 million wealth limit, adjusted for inflation, would be about $850 million today—still more than anyone could spend in a lifetime. But not even Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will go there. (The only person who has mooted the idea so far, ironically enough, is the quixotic and still befuddled David Stockman.) Why not? Probably because any such proposal would make Republicans out of the Hollywood and Silicon Valley crowd in a big hurry. The scene is another good reminder of the hypocrisy of modern liberalism.

 

[Scott T]

How dare you confuse 21Batshitcrazy21 with truth and facts? you are such a meany and racist

 

[Vincent]

How dare you confuse 21Batshitcrazy21 with truth and facts? you are such a meany and racist

Mere rebuttal to 21's snark. And yes, by today's definition of "racist" (one that holds a position contrary to liberal groupthink), I am a racist. The irony here is that this racist would have been lynched by the racists of yore, the forebears of today's actual racists. Ironic, ain't it?

 

[SteelChip]

If you really get down to the nuts and bolts, it is Individualism VS Collectivism. The Left thinks it takes a village and the right thinks it can be done at home. One other point is worth mentioning. Collectivists, in the form of Obama and his minions, are attempting to fundamentally transform the American ethos because it is inimical to collectivism. Americans must be made to believe that the American system of government has gone "too far" on the individuality side of the dilemma. Collectivists constantly tell us that corporations are greedy and don't care about people, that "the rich" are greedy and care only about themselves, that the constitution is out-dated and must be changed, and that the United States of America has become corrupt and self-serving in its treatment of the rest of the world. What collectivists are doing is establishing a "straw man" against which they can demonstrate the virtues of collectivism for the people.

But, while the Constitution of the United States emphasizes the liberty of its citizens, it establishes a form of government in which individuals are elected to represent collections of people. It is a system that, in its original conceptions, gave collective groups of individuals, called states, the right to negotiate their own interests. In short, the Founders of this nation did, indeed, grapple with the dilemma of self and other. They provided for the "common defense", the were concerned with the "general welfare", they were concerned with securing the blessings of liberty not only for themselves but for their POSTERITY. And they started this profoundly brilliant document with the words "WE the people". It is clear that what collectivists like Obama would have us believe is that America is founded only on principles of self-interest and she must be changed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

View attachment 110

 

[SteelChip]

Mere rebuttal to 21's snark. And yes, by today's definition of "racist" (one that holds a position contrary to liberal groupthink), I am a racist. The irony here is that this racist would have been lynched by the racists of yore, the forebears of today's actual racists. Ironic, ain't it?

.............View attachment 112..........

 

[bermudasteel]

This ought to be interesting...

 

[Vincent]

This ought to be interesting...

It's generally reported from the likes of Yale to Tuskegee that around 5000 were lynched after the Civil War, of which about 1300 were pubbies. I have read that the pubbies were those that came down from the North to teach newly free men and women to read and become involved in civic matters (vote and run for office). Dem dems didn't take kindly to that.

 

[Vincent]

I vote Democrat because...

And let us harken back to 1991 and this piece that crossed the airwaves...

What Is a Deathocrat Made Of?

Oh, what is a Deathocrat Made Of?
Of purple haze and militant gaze.
That's what a Deathocrat's made of.
Of sullen cynics, abortion clinics.
That's what a Deathocrat's made of.
Of pseudo-scholars and guilt trip wallowers,
hollow woe hollerers and hollower followers,
cowerers, glowerers, frivolous borrowers.
That's what a Deathocrat's made of.
Party of the strange and twisted.
Champion of each vice once hissed at.
Mockers of the tried and true.
Seekers who have not A CLU.
Where kinky notions find a home,
from whence the dinky dollar is thrown
to anywhere unjustified
from out the middle class's hide.
Pretenders pressing vague agendas,
they pose as philanthropic menders.
Pitting class and class and class,
these scions of the stubborn ***.
Kill a tree and risk their might?!!
Abortion? ... Why, a woman's right!
Depict George Bush as mad aggressor,
Castro as some quaint professor.
Appeasing all tyrants who act with bold violence,
with wishfullness, wistfullness, blissful dead silence,
they cheat on their spouses and back revolutions
where Marx and machine guns are posed as solutions.
They run in circles, swim in fees,
fly from responsibility.
A criminal will earn their pity
while victims mount in every city.
"The poor", they say, "we help upgrade!"
but back in 1978
with Democrats as the ruling tenants
of White House, Congress, and the Senate,
gaslines grew, inflation soared!
The poor did better under Ford.
Jimmy and Fritz looked pale and want.
"Who can we possibly blame this on?"
The people, that's who, as they did when they said,
"Things are bad ... they won't get better.
Its not our fault. Go wear a sweater."
They spent other folks's money to garner votes and praises,
leaving indexed taxing brackets that meant automatic raises,
that moved the poor and middle class,
their 'special friends', they said,
to brackets where scant years before
the rich and fat had laid.
And when Reagan said at last, "Indexing has to go!",
they said, "The old will soon be dead!"
and similar cries of woe.
They cursed and wurst and fairly burst with ugly histrionics.
Inflation fell. But what the hell, it can't be Reaganomics!
The man's success left them a mess when he said with rhetoric blistery,
"The dreaded reds will make their beds on the old ash heap of history!"
"Abortion is lethal and communists evil?!!
Oh, how these rubes are uncouth!
What gay bashing, chauvinist, war monger bigots!
When will they ever see truth?"
So what is a Deathocrat made of?
What IS a Deathocrat made of?
Of moral despoilers, and strident annoyers,
devious lawyers, and porno mag voyeurs,
of prayer interdiction and socialist fiction,
stupid decisions and history revisions.
Of shear abdication as sex education,
equivocation and scorn for our nation.
Of asinine fratricide.
Bully for OUR side!
That's what a Deathocrat's made of.

 

[bermudasteel]

It's generally reported from the likes of Yale to Tuskegee that around 5000 were lynched after the Civil War, of which about 1300 were pubbies. I have read that the pubbies were those that came down from the North to teach newly free men and women to read and become involved in civic matters (vote and run for office). Dem dems didn't take kindly to that.

I've read all about the "original" Democrats. Thanks for shedding the light on this again, Vince.

I said it (when I realized my mistake voting President Obama in the first time), but, from henceforth, I will always vote for the "lesser of two evils"...regardless of their party affiliation.

 

[DBS1970]

I've read all about the "original" Democrats. Thanks for shedding the light on this again, Vince.

I said it (when I realized my mistake voting President Obama in the first time), but, from henceforth, I will always vote for the "lesser of two evils"...regardless of their party affiliation.

Or you could vote libertarian and support good. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, that's all I'm saying.

 

[bermudasteel]

Or you could vote libertarian and support good. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, that's all I'm saying.

Noted. I'm voting VEGETARIAN

 

[madinsomniac]

If tomorrow every hardcore Democrat and Republican vanished from the earth, the country would be far better off. The selfish stupid nonsense those two parties have done in order to keep their benefactors rich and powerful while ******* the rest of us is sickening. Fortunately, the world is full of sheep who will always vote one of those two in... till they finally sink the country at least...

 

[Steelr4evr]

Someone has to create the damn jobs. Those evil rich people.How dare anyone make a profit. Our government should be dictating everything to everyone because they know what is good for us.Dear leader has organized communities and has been mentored by the finest marxist and communist mentors around. He will provide social justice by attacking with the irs to those evil doers who oppose him while he himself lives like a king under his own special rules. Only the insanely wealthy leftists,socialists and fascism lovers who back his governments dictations should get a free pass to do as they may. ....<sarcasm>

 

[Supersteeler]

If tomorrow every hardcore Democrat and Republican vanished from the earth, the country would be far better off. The selfish stupid nonsense those two parties have done in order to keep their benefactors rich and powerful while ******* the rest of us is sickening. Fortunately, the world is full of sheep who will always vote one of those two in... till they finally sink the country at least...

Absolutely plus 1,000

 

[Rod Farva]

I vote republican because I want the wealthy to own 95% of my country.

I'll play despite the giant flaws in both your logic and "facts"......who should own what?

 

[21STEELERS21]

I vote Republican so citizens won't have healthcare so they get chronic conditions that lead to disability and
permanent dependency on the federal government.

 

[21STEELERS21]

I vote Republican so citizens won't have healthcare so they get chronic conditions that lead to disability and
permanent dependency on the federal government.

 

[DBS1970]

I vote Republican so citizens won't have healthcare so they get chronic conditions that lead to disability and
permanent dependency on the federal government.

Right.

Because healthcare can only be obtained via big government. The irony here is that most all that "need" government healthcare are already dependent on the nanny state.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

I vote Republican so citizens won't have healthcare so they get chronic conditions that lead to disability and
permanent dependency on the federal government.

The sad part is that you think you are informed and thinking critically.