Fiscally Conservative, Socially tolerant, Anti-War
Because Democrats are much more likely to vote for what is in the interest of the people, while Republicans are much more likely to vote for what is in the interest of the wealthy and corporations.And has dmarks ever voted for a Democrat? I very much doubt it. I have never voted for a Republican, but I don't hypocritically go around spouting nonsense about nothing else mattering except the politician having a D or R after their name.
I on the other hand Can Not understand for the life of me why anyone would vote either Democratic or Republican.Which is why I am voting Libertarian.
A vote for Democrats is a vote for government dependency.A vote for Republicans is a vote for government dependency.All roads lead to the same cliff. Albeit by different paths.
You prove yourself again to be an extremely arrogant ass, WD.Half of 'the people' vote Republican, and they vote that way because it is in their interest. Since only a negligible number of them are wealthy, and none are corporations, your statement is 50% false.As for the rest of it, I am not a 'partisan lunatic' as Will accurately describes you, and as you help prove by boasting of your perfectly partisan and perfectly unprincipled voting record in the above post. I have voted several times for Democrats in major national elections as well as local ones.
dmarks: That is a good way to word your differences, RN, which avoids the arrogance and ignorance with which WD lies...He said anyone who votes for EITHER major political party is voting for "government dependency"... how is this (using dmarks' logic) NOT "arrogant"? Answer: it is. And for that reason I'd describe this ass kissing from dmarks as some mighty ignorant and arrogant hypocrisy.dmarks: Half of 'the people' vote Republican, and they vote that way because it is in their interest.They vote the way THEY JUDGE to be in their interest. We BOTH believe that those who do not agree with us are mistaken. I tell the truth about that and dmarks makes up lies about my "arrogance".And, btw, a vote for Republicans is a vote for plutocracy (with a government assist). A vote for Libertarians is a vote for plutocracy (without a government assist). Both roads lead to plutocracy. Albeit by different paths.Voting Democratic is the only path to take where there is any hope of avoiding plutocracy.dmarks: But just looking at one letter after a name requires much less [thought].This is a good point. That is why I never just look at the letter after a politician's name. I also look at how progressive a Democrat they are. Because voting for a Conservative Democrat is often just a little better than voting for a Republican.
dmarks: I have voted several times for Democrats in major national elections as well as local ones.Name one Democrat you voted for in a "major national election". I predict crickets or that you provide the name of a Conservative Democrat.
dmarks, to his credit, I did get wd to hypothetically vote for Lowell Weicker over Joe Lieberman in a 1988 time-machine election, but only after I convinced him that Mr. Weicker was the more liberal individual.
Definitely my bad. LOL
dmarks: ...but I remember you have an imaginary and inconsistent personal definition of liberal vs conservative.You're thinking of yourself. You're the one who has an imaginary and inconsistent personal definition of liberal vs conservative.
dmarks voted for Carl Levin? Was it because "Levin voted against sending troops to Iraq and repeatedly called on the Bush administration to provide a timetable for the withdrawal of troops"?Perhaps he voted for Levin because Levin called bush out as a liar when he said, "...the President's misstatements that as a matter of fact, Saddam Hussein had participated in the attack on us on 9/11. That was a deception. That was clearly misinformation. It had a huge effect on the American people".Does this mean that dmarks was orginally against the Iraq war and thought bush lied about it... and changed his mind? If so, what caused dmarks to change his mind (and go from being right to being horribly wrong)?
LOL. That was a good joke dmarks... about Saddam starting the war. Although I'm laughing at you and not with you. If you had ever thought bush lied you would have been right. bush did lie. It's well documented.And, in lying about bush lying, you're calling Carl Levin a liar. Feel bad about your vote now?And I only "consider" people Conservative Democrats if they actually are. You consider them "left wingers and liberals" because you are viewing reality through a highly distorted lens... being as far to the right that you are.
Of course you will lie about your hero Saddam Hussein, acting like Scott Ritter who lied and talked about how great Saddam was after Saddam slipped him a few hundred thousand dollars.Only you are lying on the dictator's behalf since you irrationally hate George W. Bush so much... which makes any enemy of Bush a friend of yours.
dmarks: Regardless of how conservative I am, when looking at how liberal or conservative is, I do the only sensible thing: I measure from the center. Not my own viewpoint.Guffaw.Saddam Hussein wasn't my "hero". That's an ugly lie and everyone knows it. Ossama bin Laden must have been your hero, as you wanted him to get away so badly that you would have rejected an offer to turn him over for trial. I wonder how much dmarks' payoff from al Qaeda was?And Scott Ritter received no money from Saddam. He told the truth because it was the right thing to do.
dmarks: You argue passionately, to the point of lying, to protect his regime and to have prevented doing anything effective to stop the problems.dmarks is the one who lies, as he does in this comment. I would have supported other methods of getting rid of Saddam. My opposition to the war has nothing to do with protecting his regime.dmarks: If it walks like a duck... So yes what I am saying is quite truthful. If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power, and hundreds of thousands more Iraqis would have died.This is an disgusting lie. If I had my way the war wouldn't have occurred and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives would have been saved. Your way is what killed them.dmarks: It goes without saying that a consistent thread from you is how you really hate the Iraqis and wish the worst for them.Actually the opposite is true. It's quite clear that you hate them and wish the worst for them.dmarks: Not at all. The "trial" you speak of would not have been a trial at all. He would have met with a round table of terrorists who would have given him an "Attaboy'.The OIC is a moderate Islamic Organization. Experts in this area acknowledge as much. dmarks is showing himself to be quite ignorant and arrogant... asserting his uninformed opinions as fact. dmarks: The well-documented amount is in the hundreds of thousands.It's a crazy conspiracy theory concocted by wild eyed cranks. Nothing more than rightwing slander. You've presented zero evidence.dmarks: Convicted child rapist Scott Ritter told the truth before he was bribed. After that, he told flat out lies about WMD and Saddam's regime in order to protect his new boss.Scott Ritter wasn't convicted of child rape. You're lying. And Scott Ritter was employed by the IAEA. He truthfully reported that Iraq was disarmed. Later, Hans Blix agreed. Hans Blix wasn't "fooled". And why the hell would Saddam hide his weapons and not use them?Answer: He didn't have any.
Post a Comment