Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[Ropey]

You're still misinterpreting what Adam Smith was saying though. Not only did he advocate a flat tax but he was also pointing out that the tax would be 'disproportionate' on the rich BECAUSE it was the rich that would be taxed on rents etc. and that was okay. The poor do not have property to rent to others so wouldn't be subject to that kind of tax.

The leftist tendency to justify making the rich support the poor continues.

The true American Conservative wants everybody to be treated the same--no dictated winners and losers--as the best remedy for the plight of the poor. As long as we keep the poor entrapped in a sense of entitlement that they deserve for the rich to share with them, we keep people trapped in poverty.

 

[SAT]

Even if that were true, why would it matter?

It goes to the hypocrisy of your rulers and the ignorance of those who follow in a sheep-like daze.

The Hollywood elite tell you "You need to get those rich Republicans" and y'all storm off "Bah, bah wee doo - rich republicans bahhhhhd."

That is an entirely imaginary rationale based on the cliches you've been spoon-fed by Fox News.

It's not hypocritical to be rich but still care about the rest of the world.

This is America, we don't have rulers.

The idea that Democrats vote based on some imaginary Hollywood elite is downright stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is an entirely imaginary rationale based on the cliches you've been spoon-fed by Fox News.

That must be why "the rich" never include Oprah, The NBA, George Soros, the Hollywood Elite like dummy Daemon and George Clooney.

Oprah could buy and sell the Koch brothers, she put the current moron in the White House - but never do you hear a leftist speak of her as part of the rich.

It's all a game, just the flock is too fucking stupid to grasp it.

It's not hypocritical to be rich but still care about the rest of the world.

It's hypocritical to call some "rich" and others not based on their politics.

This is America, we don't have rulers.

The dims do. And that is their plan for the nation as a whole.

The idea that Democrats vote based on some imaginary Hollywood elite is downright stupid.

ROFL

dims vote as they're told to vote.

 

[oreo]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

I guess the same reason you dumb asses vote democratic because they are for the working class when most off the rich are democrats.>

Even if that were true, why would it matter?

It matters because of this:

One billion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on pallets. Barack Obama is spending 4.3 of these a DAY.

One trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on pallets. We are currently at 14.7 trillion in red ink now with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities--(social security/medicare). The Federal Government is currently borrowing .43 cents on every dollar it spends. Per household debt to pay this tab is $534,000.00.

Now--I don't know how many trillionair's you idiots believe are out there--but obviously you could confiscate all of the WEALTH in this entire country--including your weekly pay-check and it wouldn't pay this tab.

When are you morons ever going to get a CLUE--that it's not the tax revenue--it's the Federal Government spending--STUPID.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

I guess the same reason you dumb asses vote democratic because they are for the working class when most off the rich are democrats.>

Even if that were true, why would it matter?

Well, that explains a lot about your posts in general: you have no reading comprehension skills at all.

 

[SAT]

That is an entirely imaginary rationale based on the cliches you've been spoon-fed by Fox News.

That must be why "the rich" never include Oprah, The NBA, George Soros, the Hollywood Elite like dummy Daemon and George Clooney.

Uncensored, focus. I didn't say that there are no rich Democrats. I said that your idea of their influence over Democrats is entirely imaginary.

Oprah could buy and sell the Koch brothers, she put the current moron in the White House - but never do you hear a leftist speak of her as part of the rich.

It's all a game, just the flock is too fucking stupid to grasp it.

Again, this is in your imagination. Everyone knows that Oprah is rich. No one ever said otherwise.

It's not hypocritical to be rich but still care about the rest of the world.

It's hypocritical to call some "rich" and others not based on their politics.

Again, this is imaginary. Where are you getting the idea that anyone said that NBA players are not rich? That George Soros is not rich? That Oprah is not rich?

This is America, we don't have rulers.

The dims do. And that is their plan for the nation as a whole.

Again, your imagination is working overtime.

The idea that Democrats vote based on some imaginary Hollywood elite is downright stupid.

ROFL

dims vote as they're told to vote.

Your idea here is so crazy you can't even articulate it.

George Clooney is politically active, but he's not up on stage with any Democrats.

 

[logical4u]

QUOTE=frazzledgear;4378230]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

I have news for you -insisting fellow Americans are the "enemy" because they are rich, they work harder than you, they are more successful than you -THAT is being a fucking coward buddy. Sticking up for the rights of others, especially those viewed as easy targets -takes REAL courage. You aren't sticking up for the middle class, what you are doing isn't doing anything FOR the middle class -and if you think you are, you are either deluded or a liar. Your choice but I know which way I'm leaning on that. Seriously, how is it HELPING the middle class by once again targeting a fellow group of Americans and declaring them the enemy? You LIE if you pretend that in ANY way is "sticking up" for the middle class! You can't defend some citizens by declaring other ones are the enemy -you DIVIDE the nation and thereby WEAKEN it - you aren't strengthening it at all. And I suspect you fucking well know that and for many of your ilk, THAT is the real goal. Last I checked, there isn't a single word in the Constitution about how the wealthy are somehow lesser Americans to be considered enemies of the state! YOU are the gutless coward and it takes NO brains to do it either! In fact your handlers count on people like you to not think for yourself -they even have a name for you. Useful idiots -people who are discouraged from thinking for themselves and stupid enough to believe engaging in mob mentality is both brave and intelligent. Mobs are a lot of things, mostly bad -and NEVER intelligent or humane. Which takes more courage? To call those who are more successful at life than you are "enemies" of the state for the "crime" of being successful? Or to defend them from the likes of you who believe in mob rule and people like you who insist that others OWE you the fruits of THEIR labor?

From the very beginning Democrats have ALWAYS targeted others to be singled out as enemies in this country, rejecting our shared citizenship as the ONLY basis for demanding the equal treatment of all by our government. Instead they want a government that at all times discriminates against some of us -for whatever reason they have chosen at the time, insisting those who fall within their currently targeted group are actually "enemies". At all times the left will insist fellow Americans are "enemies" which also says they clearly do not believe those in whatever group they have singled out are their equals. The left will target fellow citizens and demand government adopt a policy of officially discriminating against them as deserving of punishment as little more than THINGS to be reviled and spat upon. One thing the left will NEVER believe in -is having a government that isn't using its power to intimidate and discriminate against some group of fellow Americans. They haven't done it yet and they sure aren't starting now. Listen up bubba -the REAL heroes in this country are those who stand up to the likes of YOU constantly demanding government turn on its own citizens for whatever reason your ILK have chosen that day! Demanding government target different groups of fellow citizens for official discrimination and punitive treatment on whatever basis Democrats have chosen at the time is a LEFTWING "value", not an American one! And it takes COURAGE to stand up against your kind. Calling the people who do "cowards" may make you feel better but in fact your ilk are the real cowards. No kidding there - it is COWARDICE on your part and MINDLESS cowardice at that.

Your very premise is flawed and beyond stupid. What you really want to know is why Republicans refuse to jump on the class warfare train and pretend the wealthy are only wealthy because they must have CHEATED and STOLEN it from us. They didn't steal it from you -therefore it doesn't belong to you. They didn't steal it from ME, so it doesn't belong to ME either. MOST importantly and where the left gets TOTALLY derailed is with their anti-American belief that the fruits of one's own honest work first belongs to government -and not the individual who worked, earned and created it. WRONG -what you work to earn, what I work to earn and yes, what a rich person works to earn -belongs FIRST to the person who worked to earn it. NOT to government which is our SERVANT not our OWNER. Government only exists because of we the people -and NOT the other way around! I am not the slave of government, I am not state owned property of government -and neither is any other American -regardless of their income!

The founding premise in this country is that man has the inherit RIGHT of freedom -the right to make of his life what he will. For better or ill. THAT is what the left rejects. This is what I have said so often now but bears repeating AGAIN. The left HATES freedom, the left REJECTS freedom -because FREEDOM carries a heavy responsibility. The left are for the most part immature people who fear adulthood and believe in a system where they simply exchange their parents for some other entity that will take responsibility for them instead -and protect them from the undesirable consequences of their own poor decisions. Liberalism is about seeking the parental replacement in order to avoid adulthood. Adults love freedom and accept responsibility for themselves. Adolescents still need mommy and daddy to protect them from the consequences of their own stupid decisions - and the left believes in encouraging normal adults to fear adulthood and avoid it at all costs. Even if it means insisting we despise, revile and hate success -and thereby reward and encourage one of the most damaging self-defeating attitudes possible.

The left FIRMLY believes what the RICH earn first belongs to government -or anyone else but those who actually earned it and created it. The problem you have is with people who refuse to accept your basic premise that we are all state owned SLAVES and that government actually owns the fruits of our labor and not the person who busted his ass to create it! Not getting on that train now and never will. If I am not state owned property and the slave of government -then where do I get off insisting others are for the "mistake" of being successful? Are liberals seriously suggesting that wealthy Americans are less "equal" than they are? Have fewer rights? Less right to the fruits of THEIR labor than you have to yours? Less right to have a say about how much they choose to GIVE to government? Liberals are insisting the wealthy have NO right to expect to be treated equally by their own government, but targeted and singled out for onerous taxation liberals would never inflict on themselves!

But consider this -if it isn't YOUR money at stake here, then where do you get off insisting your opinion about how much someone else should pay is more relevant than their own opinion? Apparently liberals are arrogant enough to believe their own opinion carries more weight -even though what they want will not impact THEIR pocketbook. Hmm -what do we call such a system where the most successful are singled out as hateful, despicable, despised people who are somehow "less" than others and we should all view them as ENEMIES? Liberals are CONSTANTLY insisting the real enemies of this country are fellow Americans. It is part of the very foundation of liberalism that I most despise. Liberals act as if the nation belongs only to THEM -all others are "enemies".

I don't understand the belief of leftwingers that if someone busts their ass and earns more than you do, they OWE it to you to fork over a big chunk of it. As if that is "fair". What is fair about taking the fruits of one's labor from the person who busted his ass to earn it -and giving it to someone who didn't? Who got rewarded here and who got punished? Whatever government punishes it will get LESS -whatever it rewards it will get MORE. Does the left SERIOUSLY want fewer people earning great wealth and more people living as parasites who think they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of someone else? REALLY? When did THAT become an American value -and surely you realize that belief is incompatible with freedom and individual rights, correct? I have a RIGHT to what I have worked to earn and it is MY right as well as that of other Americans, to decide how much we CHOOSE to give to government. Government only exists because of we the people -and NOT the other way around!

Our government doesn't create wealth -it can only TAKE it from those who do. The left DESPISES success, they believe it is something that must be discouraged and punished as undesirable. The only rational explanation is to realize the left would rather see millions exist in misery "equally" than have as few as possible at the bottom. But our system was set up to leave as few as possible at the bottom. And it has been so successful those at OUR bottom are actually middle class globally. We have to use our own made-up definition of "poverty" in this country because the international definition doesn't apply at all in this country! And because our definition of poverty is always tied to it being a percentage of those at the very top -we will always have "poor" in this country. And while the word "poor" brings to mind "destitute", in reality in this country they are anything BUT.

The average poor person in the WORLD earns less than $200 a year and their greatest problems are a lack of shelter and calories. Forget access to medical care and an education.

But in this country, any household with an income below $22,000 is considered "poor". But globally this is an income in the middle of the middle class bracket. The average "poor" American has more living space than the average middle class person even among many western nations. The average "poor" American owns a computer, 3 tvs, a microwave, at least one car and has air conditioning. The greatest health problem is the consumption of TOO MANY CALORIES -obesity. The American "poor" are given free medical care and a free education. In other words, they are given advantages denied to the world's REAL poor. The average "poor" person in this country today lives better than all but the very richest person even 100 years ago! Those occupiers on Wall Street? Need to start demanding other countries imitate us, NOT that we imitate the known historical failures in the world instead!

And I think its time we NOT lose sight of this fact. How did that happen that our "poor" have a higher standard of living than even middle class people in most of the world? Its because the US also has the greatest number of wealthy people compared to every other nation. We have more millionaires per capita than other nations -and their very existence puts UPWARD pressure on both the standard of living AND the income for everyone else. When that economic level is decimated, the numbers thinned down and people punished and otherwise discouraged from earning great wealth -it puts DOWNWARD pressure on both income and standard of living.

Why on earth would I be so stupid as to believe discouraging people from earning great wealth by demanding government confiscate it from those who do would in any way benefit either the country or me personally when NEITHER is true? Every time that economic class at the top grows, MY share of the tax burden shrinks at the very same time it increases the pressure on wages for me and everyone else - thereby lifting my standard of living too. Even though I didn't lift a finger to earn great wealth, I still benefit when others do. Even our poor have a standard of living that is the envy of the world -which is why this nation is still among the top draws for those seeking to emigrate to another country! I want MORE people to earn great wealth for themselves, not fewer!

And if you had a shred of intelligence, critical thinking skills or any understanding of the lessons of history - you would too.

[/QUOTE]

This was from frazzledgear, I just clapped.

 

[Unkotare]

No, but I will tell you that a Republican (Eisenhower) DID provide for building the road system that we currently enjoy today.....]

Harding had proposed all that more than 30 years before.

And we all know that leftists should get more credit for their good intentions than the right does for actually fulfilling them.

You do realize Harding was a Republican, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Harding had proposed all that more than 30 years before.

And we all know that leftists should get more credit for their good intentions than the right does for actually fulfilling them.

You do realize Harding was a Republican, right?

First of all, I don't care.

Second of all, I didn't say a word about political parties, now did I?

And third, I was referring more to YOU than to Harding, in terms of blathering about irrelevancies like "who proposed the idea" as though it's somehow equivalent to actually executing it.

For the record, I don't pay enough attention to you to recall off the top of my head what your overall leftist rating happens to be, so don't even bother getting your panties in a ruffle at me like I'm supposed to know all about you at a glance. This just happens to sound like a rather leftist way of looking at things.

 

[Unkotare]

And we all know that leftists should get more credit for their good intentions than the right does for actually fulfilling them.

You do realize Harding was a Republican, right?

First of all, I don't care.

Second of all, I didn't say a word about political parties, now did I?

And third, I was referring more to YOU than to Harding, in terms of blathering about irrelevancies like "who proposed the idea" as though it's somehow equivalent to actually executing it.

For the record, I don't pay enough attention to you to recall off the top of my head what your overall leftist rating happens to be, so don't even bother getting your panties in a ruffle at me like I'm supposed to know all about you at a glance. This just happens to sound like a rather leftist way of looking at things.

An angry response does nothing to mask your ignorance of US History. Harding was most certainly NOT a "leftist" and neither - to be sure - am I. If you hadn't been in such a hurry to make assumptions you might have understood the point of my post. If you're embarrassed by your error just be more careful next time. Lashing out in frustration won't make it go away. Learn your lesson and move on.

 

[SAT]

And this brings to mind the fact that ANY action for the public good is now called "leftist" by the Tea Bag crowd, and therefore is objectionable. Which is why the GOP controlled House is absolutely constipated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize Harding was a Republican, right?

First of all, I don't care.

Second of all, I didn't say a word about political parties, now did I?

And third, I was referring more to YOU than to Harding, in terms of blathering about irrelevancies like "who proposed the idea" as though it's somehow equivalent to actually executing it.

For the record, I don't pay enough attention to you to recall off the top of my head what your overall leftist rating happens to be, so don't even bother getting your panties in a ruffle at me like I'm supposed to know all about you at a glance. This just happens to sound like a rather leftist way of looking at things.

An angry response does nothing to mask your ignorance of US History. Harding was most certainly NOT a "leftist" and neither - to be sure - am I. If you hadn't been in such a hurry to make assumptions you might have understood the point of my post. If you're embarrassed by your error just be more careful next time. Lashing out in frustration won't make it go away. Learn your lesson and move on.

An angry response does nothing to mask your ignorance of the English language. I wasn't calling Harding a leftist; I was calling YOU one. And what part of "don't bother getting your panties in a ruffle at me like I'm supposed to know all about you" was too complicated? Don't know if you consider yourself a leftist; don't give a shit. Don't know if you're always a leftist; don't care enough to remember you. I just know you sound like a leftist when you bring up irrelevant shit like "Well, So-and-so PROPOSED this."

I didn't make any errors, dipshit. You sounded like a leftist; I called you a leftist. You sound like a leftist AND an idiot now; I'm calling you both. Keep talking; I'll just believe even more firmly that my initial judgement of you was correct.

 

[SAT]

How can that meet your definition of leftist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And this brings to mind the fact that ANY action for the public good is now called "leftist" by the Tea Bag crowd, and therefore is objectionable. Which is why the GOP controlled House is absolutely constipated.

No, shitstain. Any action proposed "for the public good" which any sane adult can see would have the opposite effect is called "leftist", because that sort of ass-backward thinking is the hallmark of the left. Furthermore, my personal rule of thumb is that any action touted by juveniles with latent homosexual tendencies (as evidenced by the belief that "Tea Bag" and "Tea Bagger" is the height of wit) should automatically be dismissed from any serious consideration.

Don't throw a hissy at me for correctly identifying your ilk just because you wish reality was different.

 

[Unkotare]

First of all, I don't care.

Second of all, I didn't say a word about political parties, now did I?

And third, I was referring more to YOU than to Harding, in terms of blathering about irrelevancies like "who proposed the idea" as though it's somehow equivalent to actually executing it.

For the record, I don't pay enough attention to you to recall off the top of my head what your overall leftist rating happens to be, so don't even bother getting your panties in a ruffle at me like I'm supposed to know all about you at a glance. This just happens to sound like a rather leftist way of looking at things.

An angry response does nothing to mask your ignorance of US History. Harding was most certainly NOT a "leftist" and neither - to be sure - am I. If you hadn't been in such a hurry to make assumptions you might have understood the point of my post. If you're embarrassed by your error just be more careful next time. Lashing out in frustration won't make it go away. Learn your lesson and move on.

An angry response does nothing to mask your ignorance of the English language. I wasn't calling Harding a leftist; I was calling YOU one. And what part of "don't bother getting your panties in a ruffle at me like I'm supposed to know all about you" was too complicated? Don't know if you consider yourself a leftist; don't give a shit. Don't know if you're always a leftist; don't care enough to remember you. I just know you sound like a leftist when you bring up irrelevant shit like "Well, So-and-so PROPOSED this."

I didn't make any errors, dipshit. You sounded like a leftist; I called you a leftist. You sound like a leftist AND an idiot now; I'm calling you both. Keep talking; I'll just believe even more firmly that my initial judgement of you was correct.

This continuing anger just makes you look desperate and humiliated. Your "If you respond that means I'm right!" gambit is not the escape you are looking for. Suck it up, admit your mistake and try to do better next time. The "your ignorance of the English language" bit also fails, as your comments could only reasonbly be read one way and were inaccurate no matter how they might be read. So, that escape doesn't work. Pointing out how the policy objectives of a successful Republican President were thwarted by a democrat Congress doesn't make anyone "sound like a leftist." You know this. You're now letting your pride get the better of you when you should know well enough to admit your error and move on.

 

[SAT]

And this brings to mind the fact that ANY action for the public good is now called "leftist" by the Tea Bag crowd, and therefore is objectionable. Which is why the GOP controlled House is absolutely constipated.

No, shitstain. Any action proposed "for the public good" which any sane adult can see would have the opposite effect is called "leftist", because that sort of ass-backward thinking is the hallmark of the left. Furthermore, my personal rule of thumb is that any action touted by juveniles with latent homosexual tendencies (as evidenced by the belief that "Tea Bag" and "Tea Bagger" is the height of wit) should automatically be dismissed from any serious consideration.

Don't throw a hissy at me for correctly identifying your ilk just because you wish reality was different.

I have to assume that your preoccupation with shit stains is that you find them so hard to get out of leather.

You're still not being clear as to how you define leftist. Are you some sort of anarchist?

As for Tea Bagging, hey, the right wingers brought it up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can that meet your definition of leftist?

The left in America is the embodiment of the old saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." They always want to be lauded for what they INTENDED to do, or INTENDED to have happen, and they always want us to ignore what ACTUALLY happened, even when a purblind monkey could have seen those very same consequences coming from a mile away.

That answer your question?

 

[Putt4eagle]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

1) The top 1% are not the same people year to year. Most of the top income earners are in that bracket only temporarily through the sale of an asset like a home or the inheritance of a business, or a temporary investment windfall. So I assume you are talking about the permanent 1%, the Bill Gates/Steve Jobs of the world.
2) The top 1% didn't steal the money. They earned it. They shouldn't be punished for doing so.
3) The earnings of the top 1% doesn't effect my ability to earn. In fact, in many cases, the top 1% of earners don't do it alone. They take other people with them on the way up.

So I have a question for you. Why do feel you must be "against" the wealthy? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, et al, employ 100s of thousands of people worldwide who make very nice incomes as employees of these companies. Their innovations have indirectly created opportunity for thousands of people outside of their companies through the use and sale of the products/services they make. They navigated through endless regulation and a punishing tax code to make their companies a success. And this is what you are "Against"? For all the good these people have done, directly and indirectly, you want to punish their success. And you call conservatives 'traders'.

Instead of looking up with envy, why don't you look down in shame? There are able bodied poor in this country who, despite a free education, free housing and free food as they grew up, remain dependent on the middle and upper class for their daily existence as adults. This, too you, is acceptable. These folks, to you, are victims of the evils of the rich. Their squandered opportunities are somehow the fault of those who didn't squander their own. America guarantees you opportunity, not outcome.

Your anger is ignorant and misplaced.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An angry response does nothing to mask your ignorance of US History. Harding was most certainly NOT a "leftist" and neither - to be sure - am I. If you hadn't been in such a hurry to make assumptions you might have understood the point of my post. If you're embarrassed by your error just be more careful next time. Lashing out in frustration won't make it go away. Learn your lesson and move on.

An angry response does nothing to mask your ignorance of the English language. I wasn't calling Harding a leftist; I was calling YOU one. And what part of "don't bother getting your panties in a ruffle at me like I'm supposed to know all about you" was too complicated? Don't know if you consider yourself a leftist; don't give a shit. Don't know if you're always a leftist; don't care enough to remember you. I just know you sound like a leftist when you bring up irrelevant shit like "Well, So-and-so PROPOSED this."

I didn't make any errors, dipshit. You sounded like a leftist; I called you a leftist. You sound like a leftist AND an idiot now; I'm calling you both. Keep talking; I'll just believe even more firmly that my initial judgement of you was correct.

This continuing anger just makes you look desperate and humiliated. Your "If you respond that means I'm right!" gambit is not the escape you are looking for. Suck it up, admit your mistake and try to do better next time. The "your ignorance of the English language" bit also fails, as your comments could only reasonbly be read one way and were inaccurate no matter how they might be read. So, that escape doesn't work. Pointing out how the policy objectives of a successful Republican President were thwarted by a democrat Congress doesn't make anyone "sound like a leftist." You know this. You're now letting your pride get the better of you when you should know well enough to admit your error and move on.

Oh, I've already moved on, Sparky. I've explained myself twice, which is once more than I usually deign to bother with. If you'd rather continue pretending that I was talking about President Harding than admit that you sounded like an irrelevant liberal dumbass, you'll be doing it solo. I might suggest, however, that if you're "pointing out the thwarting by a Democrat Congress", you might want to actually include the word "Congress" somewhere in your post. If people could read your mind, we wouldn't have to log into the Internet message board at all, you see.

 

[SAT]

How can that meet your definition of leftist?

The left in America is the embodiment of the old saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." They always want to be lauded for what they INTENDED to do, or INTENDED to have happen, and they always want us to ignore what ACTUALLY happened, even when a purblind monkey could have seen those very same consequences coming from a mile away.

That answer your question?

No, it sure doesn't. It's just kind of a vague, random, baseless attack. You start by attacking a former President for having an idea-a very good idea-that he was unable, because of the nature of our system of government, to follow through on. He is, therefore, a leftist, because someone praised him for THINKING of something that was for the public good, something that was not enacted till much later, by that notable leftist Dwight Eisenhower. [Note: This is one of the reasons I keep pointing out that the right wingers on these boards are in line with John Birch Society ideology-the JBS attacked Ike as a committed agent of communism.]

You've put yourself in the position of calling the Interstate Highway System a liberal failure-when in fact, it's been a spectacular economic and public safety success-of government acting as government should act. For the public benefit.