I am DONE with Democrats.

[candycorn]

You're not honest because you're a democrat

306>232.


An honest ass kicking.

 

[TheYellowKing]

Democrats are socialists? Why? On what grounds do you identify American democrats as "socialists"?

Bernie Sanders, the squad, young leftoids yes they're socialist. There is a strong under current of Marxism running in the modern Democrat party

 

[Red Front]

Bernie Sanders, the squad, young leftoids yes they're socialist. There is a strong under current of Marxism running in the modern Democrat party

No, you're exaggerating. To what extent do Bernie and AOC want to take control of the means of production, eliminating private property? Like ZERO. Are they really on the path to communism? No.

Communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money:

" A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[10] "

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

That's the Marxist definition of communism. Stateless, classless, and without the need for money. That's far from what Bernie or AOC are aiming for. They're more like social democrats than actual socialists. Socialism is the process that leads to communism. Some socialists like me, identify as communists, not because we believe we've already reached the goal of communism, but rather because we identify with the objective or purpose of our socialism, which is communism. A stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

Bernie and AOC are just "social democrats", progressive liberals who lean towards the left. They're a small minority in the Democratic party. Most Dems are establishment hacks, who serve the rich at the expense of the poor and working class, similar to the Republicans. They like to talk like they're for the public good and more concerned about the poor and working class, but in general, they're all talk and no action. They always go in half-ass, which isn't much better than doing nothing.

 

[TNHarley]

They are only missing 800 something people total.
There is a couple thousand kids that havent enrolled in school. Maybe thats what you are referring to?
Those kids could have enrolled in other schools. Also, some of them are doing online schooling.

https://boe.hawaii.gov/Meetings/Notices/Meeting%20Material%20Library/GBM_08242023_Report%20on%20Report%20of%20the%20Superintendent.pdf

 

[Curried Goats]

Prove it I suggest you actually read the link

I can't prove that something isn't in the article other to say it isn't and challenge you quote what you think is the relevant portion. That's basic logic.

 

[Curried Goats]

You’re really one pointless dishonest twat.

Prove me wrong then Snowflake. Let's see all this pork that was in the Sandy relief bill.

 

[BackAgain]

Prove me wrong then Snowflake. Let's see all this pork that was in the Sandy relief bill.

That wasn’t even the discussion, Jerk Chicken.

 

[Curried Goats]

That wasn’t even the discussion, Jerk Chicken.

Let's try this again. The discussion was about how Democrats aren't sending enough aid to Hawaii. I pointed out it's Republicans who are the ones who often vote against sending aid at all then you all started bitching out and telling me it was OK to deny that aid because it was filled with pork. I asked what pork and you lot have derped around since then trying to dip and dodge from your lack of evidence.

 

[BackAgain]

Let's try this again. The discussion was about how Democrats aren't sending enough aid to Hawaii.

Yep.

I pointed out it's Republicans who are the ones who often vote against sending aid at all then you all started bitching out and telling me it was OK to deny that aid because it was filled with pork.

Partly right. You didn’t “point out” anything. You made a claim. Very different concept.

I asked what pork and you lot have derped around since then trying to dip and dodge from your lack of evidence.

I wasn’t replying to any comment you made about pork, ya derpy dumbass.

Now then. Having resolved that, let’s move on.

You are meaning less.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yep.

Partly right. You didn’t “point out” anything. You made a claim. Very different concept.

I wasn’t replying to any comment you made about pork, ya derpy dumbass.

Now then. Having resolved that, let’s move on.

You are meaning less.

I didn't make a claim. Their vote against Sandy aid is a matter of public record you dumb Simp. I simply pointed you in the direction of the proof.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't make a claim. Their vote against Sandy aid is a matter of public record you dumb Simp. I simply pointed you in the direction of the proof.

That’s not what you did, you dishonest simpleton sack of stupid.

By the way, I expect that (like most things in life) this will fly over your little pin head, but it’s true that there have been objections to offering Federal monies to States and localities struck by emergencies. Nevertheless, we have collectively agreed via our laws that the Federal Government should provide such assistance after natural emergencies. This is why we have a FEMA.

Anyone who disapproves of such use of our Federal funds may have a legitimate Constitutional point. For instance, absent a clear Constitutional authorization to engage in such practice, it has been argued since the time of our Founding that the Federal government has no such authority. This is one of the points inherent in a government of LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers.

There are, obviously, different views in the matter.

But simpletons, such as you, always boil everything down to “Republicans are mean and bad” and “Democratics are sharing and good.” However, the actual bases for the underlying and fundamental discussion isn’t found in your petty partisan political quibbles. It is found in an honest discussion and debate about our Constitution.

emergency powers

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Curried Goats]

That’s not what you did, you dishonest simpleton sack of stupid.

By the way, I expect that (like most things in life) this will fly over your little pin head, but it’s true that there have been objections to offering Federal monies to States and localities struck by emergencies. Nevertheless, we have collectively agreed via our laws that the Federal Government should provide such assistance after natural emergencies. This is why we have a FEMA.

Anyone who disapproves of such use of our Federal funds may have a legitimate Constitutional point. For instance, absent a clear Constitutional authorization to engage in such practice, it has been argued since the time of our Founding that the Federal government has no such authority. This is one of the points inherent in a government of LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers.

There are, obviously, different views in the matter.

But simpletons, such as you, always boil everything down to “Republicans are mean and bad” and “Democratics are sharing and good.” However, the actual bases for the underlying and fundamental discussion isn’t found in your petty partisan political quibbles. It is found in an honest discussion and debate about our Constitution.

emergency powers

www.law.cornell.edu

In other words whatever Biden ends up giving won't ever be enough but when Republicans vote to give nothing it's from a righteous belief in the constitution....

 

[BackAgain]

In other words whatever Biden ends up giving won't ever be enough but when Republicans vote to give nothing it's from a righteous belief in the constitution....

Those ^ words have not a damn thing to do with anything I wrote. So, no. Not “in other words.”

You’re just resorting to your stale old false dichotomy trick.

I’d say, “nice try,” but it doesn’t help you to lie to you. You suck at this.

 

[Curried Goats]

Those ^ words have not a damn thing to do with anything I wrote. So, no. Not “in other words.”

You’re just resorting to your stale old false dichotomy trick.

I’d say, “nice try,” but it doesn’t help you to lie to you. You suck at this.

Sure they don't, coward.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure they don't, coward.

They don’t. And thanks for signing your post.

 

[Curried Goats]

They don’t. And thanks for signing your post.

Uh huh....

Anyone who disapproves of such use of our Federal funds may have a legitimate Constitutional point. ....

But simpletons, such as you, always boil everything down to “Republicans are mean and bad” and “Democratics are sharing and good.” However, the actual bases for the underlying and fundamental discussion isn’t found in your petty partisan political quibbles. It is found in an honest discussion and debate about our Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

Uh huh....

Yep.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yep.

I know. You said it and then you acted like a bitch about it. I'd hate to have it highlighted too.

 

[BluesLegend]

306>232.


An honest ass kicking.

"honest"? Go away Dem cheaters.

 

[BackAgain]

I know. You said it and then you acted like a bitch about it. I'd hate to have it highlighted too.

I said what I said. I stand by what I said. Quoting me to me doesn’t support your mindless contentions.

I don’t assume you’ve ever taken any course in logic. But if you did, you failed.