What Does the Democratic Party Stand For?

[SUPERMAN1929]

They are consistently identified as the party in favor of smaller government. I made that clear in the OP. But this isnt about the GOP. This is about what Dems stand for.

Yes, Democrats are in favor of limiting free speech. They already launched a Constitutional intiiative aimed at restricting free speech.
Thanks for pointing this out: Democrats are opposed to civil liberties. That's one point.

Trying to boost your post count, again?

That it mere pablum. It also isnt true, if it means anything at all. Dem policies have been the most likely to dehumanize and objectify people.

These quotes and many others by the original poster in this thread lead me to the deduction that this person is either:

a.) Trolling

or

b.) Unintelligent


It seems that if the GOP 'says' they are for smaller government, then, no questions asked, they are, on their word alone. And that's good enough for The Rabbi.

If anyone brings up a point against the idea of the GOP being for what The Rabbi believes they are for, HeShe says "This is about the Democrats, not the GOP."

DESPITE the misleading opening sentence of this thread being entirely about WHAT THE GOP PLATFORM IS.

Only The Rabbi is allowed to talk about the GOP in this thread..

Furthermore, the Democratic party says they are for civil liberties.

But in The Rabbi's world, only the GOP's word is as good as gold. In this thread, Rabbi's opinion is all that matters.
Because of this, the Democratic party is now 'opposed to civil liberties'..

Being completely biased and yet absolutely unaware of it is generally a sign of low intelligence, but it is also a well known troll tactic.
Hm..

Now, I ask YOU, the reader:

Trolling, or stupid?

I realize you arent very bright. OK you're downright stupid. So to help you out here is the OP again:

The GOP stands for smaller government, lower taxes, pro business, generally socially conservative policies. Most people would agree on that even if they dont always vote that way.
What does the Democratic Party stand for? THey seem to stand for class warfare, tribal identification, and free shit.
]

So I acknowledge right there in the OP that the reality of what the GOP does might sometimes be at variance to what the GOP generally stands for. But they are typically identified as standing for certain things.
But instead of answering the question--the one right there in the subject line--the Demoturds want to harp on a point I've already acknowledged. Which is why whenever you try that I dismiss it, trying to bring the discussion back to where I intended.
But since I nailed the Democrats perfectly--they are for class warfare and pandering--pretty much the only response from Dems has to be "yabut, the GOP are all big honking hypocrites adnt they voted for.." blahblahblahgofuckyourself..
So really, as always, you are guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You are the troll here, unable to address the point of the OP.

You're problem with the 'smoking gun' point you think you have on me is that your writing didn't clearly convey what you were trying to say.

Your sentence "Most people would agree on that even if they don't always vote that way." could JUST AS CLEARLY be saying that "Even people who don't vote for the GOP would agree that these are their policies."
(It's also missing a comma, though that's beside the point..)

The "they" could just as easily be referring to "people", since "people" is the subject, the ONLY specified noun in the sentence, and they also commonly vote.


I don't quite understand how I'M the stupid one here, considering the MORE than reasonable explanation for the situation above.

I'm not here to read your mind, just your posts. It's your job to convey your thoughts clearly.

All I've seen you do is bitch about how you can't read other people's posts and you use superior grammar. Get over yo dumb self.

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

I know. It's tough being so open minded as to give every democrat an opportunity to prove they aren't stupid. Every time I go into it thinking, "maybe this one is smart" and then after a few posts they demonstrate how dumb they are. I need to start stereotyping like they do.

 

[-S-]

Who was the last GOP President to leave with a smaller deficit than he inherited; a smaller government then he inherited...?

Well...who?

Two I can think of off the top of my head are Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge.

Your turn. Name a Democrat likewise.

Jefferson was no Republican and he also ran up a huge deficit to pay for the Louisiana Purchase

Coolidge led us to the Great Depression

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Another clear example of you not checking your posts before hitting 'send'...

It's not like my argument is unprecedented.

There is no "send' buttom, dumbshit. You really are an obnoxious ass.

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

They are consistently identified as the party in favor of smaller government. I made that clear in the OP. But this isnt about the GOP. This is about what Dems stand for.

Yes, Democrats are in favor of limiting free speech. They already launched a Constitutional intiiative aimed at restricting free speech.
Thanks for pointing this out: Democrats are opposed to civil liberties. That's one point.

Trying to boost your post count, again?

That it mere pablum. It also isnt true, if it means anything at all. Dem policies have been the most likely to dehumanize and objectify people.

These quotes and many others by the original poster in this thread lead me to the deduction that this person is either:

a.) Trolling

or

b.) Unintelligent


It seems that if the GOP 'says' they are for smaller government, then, no questions asked, they are, on their word alone. And that's good enough for The Rabbi.

If anyone brings up a point against the idea of the GOP being for what The Rabbi believes they are for, HeShe says "This is about the Democrats, not the GOP."

DESPITE the misleading opening sentence of this thread being entirely about WHAT THE GOP PLATFORM IS.

Only The Rabbi is allowed to talk about the GOP in this thread..

Furthermore, the Democratic party says they are for civil liberties.

But in The Rabbi's world, only the GOP's word is as good as gold. In this thread, Rabbi's opinion is all that matters.
Because of this, the Democratic party is now 'opposed to civil liberties'..

Being completely biased and yet absolutely unaware of it is generally a sign of low intelligence, but it is also a well known troll tactic.
Hm..

Now, I ask YOU, the reader:

Trolling, or stupid?

I realize you arent very bright. OK you're downright stupid. So to help you out here is the OP again:

The GOP stands for smaller government, lower taxes, pro business, generally socially conservative policies. Most people would agree on that even if they dont always vote that way.
What does the Democratic Party stand for? THey seem to stand for class warfare, tribal identification, and free shit.
]

So I acknowledge right there in the OP that the reality of what the GOP does might sometimes be at variance to what the GOP generally stands for. But they are typically identified as standing for certain things.
But instead of answering the question--the one right there in the subject line--the Demoturds want to harp on a point I've already acknowledged. Which is why whenever you try that I dismiss it, trying to bring the discussion back to where I intended.
But since I nailed the Democrats perfectly--they are for class warfare and pandering--pretty much the only response from Dems has to be "yabut, the GOP are all big honking hypocrites adnt they voted for.." blahblahblahgofuckyourself..
So really, as always, you are guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You are the troll here, unable to address the point of the OP.

You're problem with the 'smoking gun' point you think you have on me is that your writing didn't clearly convey what you were trying to say.

Your sentence "Most people would agree on that even if they don't always vote that way." could JUST AS CLEARLY be saying that "Even people who don't vote for the GOP would agree that these are their policies."
(It's also missing a comma, though that's beside the point..)

The "they" could just as easily be referring to "people", since "people" is the subject, the ONLY specified noun in the sentence, and they also commonly vote.


I don't quite understand how I'M the stupid one here, considering the MORE than reasonable explanation for the situation above.

I'm not here to read your mind, just your posts. It's your job to convey your thoughts clearly.

All I've seen you do is bitch about how you can't read other people's posts and you use superior grammar. Get over yo dumb self.

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

 

[rightwinger]

The GOP stands for smaller government, lower taxes, pro business, generally socially conservative policies. Most people would agree on that even if they dont always vote that way.
What does the Democratic Party stand for? THey seem to stand for class warfare, tribal identification, and free shit.
How can they possibly hope to win with such divisive stands, and after such a record of failure?

Who was the last GOP President to leave with a smaller deficit than he inherited; a smaller government then he inherited...?

Well...who?

Two I can think of off the top of my head are Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge.

Your turn. Name a Democrat likewise.

Jefferson was no Republican and he also ran up a huge deficit to pay for the Louisiana Purchase

Coolidge led us to the Great Depression

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Prove me wrong......oh yea

You can't do that

 

[HappyJoy]

Democrats stand for the prerogative rule of a central authority, be it a monarchy or a democracy.

A monarchy?

OK, maybe kleptocracy would be a better term.

Nah.

 

[The Rabbi]

Two I can think of off the top of my head are Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge.

Your turn. Name a Democrat likewise.

Jefferson was no Republican and he also ran up a huge deficit to pay for the Louisiana Purchase

Coolidge led us to the Great Depression

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Another clear example of you not checking your posts before hitting 'send'...

It's not like my argument is unprecedented.

There is no "send' buttom, dumbshit. You really are an obnoxious ass.

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

These quotes and many others by the original poster in this thread lead me to the deduction that this person is either:

a.) Trolling

or

b.) Unintelligent


It seems that if the GOP 'says' they are for smaller government, then, no questions asked, they are, on their word alone. And that's good enough for The Rabbi.

If anyone brings up a point against the idea of the GOP being for what The Rabbi believes they are for, HeShe says "This is about the Democrats, not the GOP."

DESPITE the misleading opening sentence of this thread being entirely about WHAT THE GOP PLATFORM IS.

Only The Rabbi is allowed to talk about the GOP in this thread..

Furthermore, the Democratic party says they are for civil liberties.

But in The Rabbi's world, only the GOP's word is as good as gold. In this thread, Rabbi's opinion is all that matters.
Because of this, the Democratic party is now 'opposed to civil liberties'..

Being completely biased and yet absolutely unaware of it is generally a sign of low intelligence, but it is also a well known troll tactic.
Hm..

Now, I ask YOU, the reader:

Trolling, or stupid?

I realize you arent very bright. OK you're downright stupid. So to help you out here is the OP again:

The GOP stands for smaller government, lower taxes, pro business, generally socially conservative policies. Most people would agree on that even if they dont always vote that way.
What does the Democratic Party stand for? THey seem to stand for class warfare, tribal identification, and free shit.
]

So I acknowledge right there in the OP that the reality of what the GOP does might sometimes be at variance to what the GOP generally stands for. But they are typically identified as standing for certain things.
But instead of answering the question--the one right there in the subject line--the Demoturds want to harp on a point I've already acknowledged. Which is why whenever you try that I dismiss it, trying to bring the discussion back to where I intended.
But since I nailed the Democrats perfectly--they are for class warfare and pandering--pretty much the only response from Dems has to be "yabut, the GOP are all big honking hypocrites adnt they voted for.." blahblahblahgofuckyourself..
So really, as always, you are guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You are the troll here, unable to address the point of the OP.

You're problem with the 'smoking gun' point you think you have on me is that your writing didn't clearly convey what you were trying to say.

Your sentence "Most people would agree on that even if they don't always vote that way." could JUST AS CLEARLY be saying that "Even people who don't vote for the GOP would agree that these are their policies."
(It's also missing a comma, though that's beside the point..)

The "they" could just as easily be referring to "people", since "people" is the subject, the ONLY specified noun in the sentence, and they also commonly vote.


I don't quite understand how I'M the stupid one here, considering the MORE than reasonable explanation for the situation above.

I'm not here to read your mind, just your posts. It's your job to convey your thoughts clearly.

All I've seen you do is bitch about how you can't read other people's posts and you use superior grammar. Get over yo dumb self.

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

The only thing that rises to your level is a turd in a toilet bowl. What you dont know about grammar would fill volumes. What you think you know that is dead wrong would fill the entire bandwidth of this site.
You are a joke, a non-hacker.

 

[-S-]

The GOP stands for smaller government, lower taxes, pro business, generally socially conservative policies. Most people would agree on that even if they dont always vote that way.
What does the Democratic Party stand for? THey seem to stand for class warfare, tribal identification, and free shit.
How can they possibly hope to win with such divisive stands, and after such a record of failure?

Who was the last GOP President to leave with a smaller deficit than he inherited; a smaller government then he inherited...?

Well...who?

Two I can think of off the top of my head are Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge.

Your turn. Name a Democrat likewise.

Jefferson was no Republican and he also ran up a huge deficit to pay for the Louisiana Purchase

Coolidge led us to the Great Depression

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Prove me wrong......oh yea

You can't do that

The Rabbi just called Thomas Jefferson a member of the Republican Party.
Therefore, his/her argument is invalid.

 

[Kosh]

Who was the last GOP President to leave with a smaller deficit than he inherited; a smaller government then he inherited...?

Well...who?

Two I can think of off the top of my head are Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge.

Your turn. Name a Democrat likewise.

Jefferson was no Republican and he also ran up a huge deficit to pay for the Louisiana Purchase

Coolidge led us to the Great Depression

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Prove me wrong......oh yea

You can't do that

The Rabbi just called Thomas Jefferson a member of the Republican Party.
Therefore, his/her argument is invalid.

More proof that the far left has no clue about history..

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

 

[-S-]

Jefferson was no Republican and he also ran up a huge deficit to pay for the Louisiana Purchase

Coolidge led us to the Great Depression

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Another clear example of you not checking your posts before hitting 'send'...

It's not like my argument is unprecedented.

There is no "send' buttom, dumbshit. You really are an obnoxious ass.

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

I realize you arent very bright. OK you're downright stupid. So to help you out here is the OP again:
So I acknowledge right there in the OP that the reality of what the GOP does might sometimes be at variance to what the GOP generally stands for. But they are typically identified as standing for certain things.
But instead of answering the question--the one right there in the subject line--the Demoturds want to harp on a point I've already acknowledged. Which is why whenever you try that I dismiss it, trying to bring the discussion back to where I intended.
But since I nailed the Democrats perfectly--they are for class warfare and pandering--pretty much the only response from Dems has to be "yabut, the GOP are all big honking hypocrites adnt they voted for.." blahblahblahgofuckyourself..
So really, as always, you are guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You are the troll here, unable to address the point of the OP.

You're problem with the 'smoking gun' point you think you have on me is that your writing didn't clearly convey what you were trying to say.

Your sentence "Most people would agree on that even if they don't always vote that way." could JUST AS CLEARLY be saying that "Even people who don't vote for the GOP would agree that these are their policies."
(It's also missing a comma, though that's beside the point..)

The "they" could just as easily be referring to "people", since "people" is the subject, the ONLY specified noun in the sentence, and they also commonly vote.


I don't quite understand how I'M the stupid one here, considering the MORE than reasonable explanation for the situation above.

I'm not here to read your mind, just your posts. It's your job to convey your thoughts clearly.

All I've seen you do is bitch about how you can't read other people's posts and you use superior grammar. Get over yo dumb self.

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

The only thing that rises to your level is a turd in a toilet bowl. What you dont know about grammar would fill volumes. What you think you know that is dead wrong would fill the entire bandwidth of this site.
You are a joke, a non-hacker.

Ha! Good one! Scatological humor is great.

Now, back to the point:

First, I'd like to point out that I never claimed to know everything. Only more than you, and others of your ilk, such as "To see an idiot's POV, one must BE an idiot, so The Rabbi is smart!" Superman.

You seem to blame me for your ineffective topic.
It's not my fault your thread is falling apart because your opening post was flawed in it's execution

Next time, think before you type. That is all you have to do. It's a very, very simple procedure.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who was the last GOP President to leave with a smaller deficit than he inherited; a smaller government then he inherited...?

Well...who?

Two I can think of off the top of my head are Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge.

Your turn. Name a Democrat likewise.

Jefferson was no Republican and he also ran up a huge deficit to pay for the Louisiana Purchase

Coolidge led us to the Great Depression

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Prove me wrong......oh yea

You can't do that

The Rabbi just called Thomas Jefferson a member of the Republican Party.
Therefore, his/her argument is invalid.

I did no such thing.
Therefore you are a troll.

 

[The Rabbi]

You'v exhausted your quota of stupid things for one day. Maybe just in that one post.

Another clear example of you not checking your posts before hitting 'send'...

It's not like my argument is unprecedented.

There is no "send' buttom, dumbshit. You really are an obnoxious ass.

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

You're problem with the 'smoking gun' point you think you have on me is that your writing didn't clearly convey what you were trying to say.

Your sentence "Most people would agree on that even if they don't always vote that way." could JUST AS CLEARLY be saying that "Even people who don't vote for the GOP would agree that these are their policies."
(It's also missing a comma, though that's beside the point..)

The "they" could just as easily be referring to "people", since "people" is the subject, the ONLY specified noun in the sentence, and they also commonly vote.


I don't quite understand how I'M the stupid one here, considering the MORE than reasonable explanation for the situation above.

I'm not here to read your mind, just your posts. It's your job to convey your thoughts clearly.

All I've seen you do is bitch about how you can't read other people's posts and you use superior grammar. Get over yo dumb self.

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

The only thing that rises to your level is a turd in a toilet bowl. What you dont know about grammar would fill volumes. What you think you know that is dead wrong would fill the entire bandwidth of this site.
You are a joke, a non-hacker.

Ha! Good one! Scatological humor is great.

Now, back to the point:

First, I'd like to point out that I never claimed to know everything. Only more than you, and others of your ilk, such as "To see an idiot's POV, one must BE an idiot, so The Rabbi is smart!" Superman.

You seem to blame me for your ineffective topic.
It's not my fault your thread is falling apart because your opening post was flawed in it's execution

Next time, think before you type. That is all you have to do. It's a very, very simple procedure.

Nothing wrong with the OP. I cant help it if you are reading disabled. Maybe remedial help?
Anyway you have nothing to add here but snark and insults. Lord knows you ran out of actual arguments after the first sentence of the first post. And that's being generous.
So either shape up or you're getting the Iggy treatment.

 

[-S-]

More proof that the far left has no clue about history..

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

Sorry, but no.

It's common knowledge that the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson's time is a completely separate entity from the current Republican Party, which started in Lincoln's time.

 

[Kosh]

More proof that the far left has no clue about history..

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

Sorry, but no.

It's common knowledge that the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson's time is a completely separate entity from the current Republican Party, which started in Lincoln's time.

Once again the revisionists of the far left will do what they must to rewrite history.

The far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

The term "republican" was in widespread usage from the 1770s to describe the type government the break-away colonies wanted to form: a Republic of three separate branches of government derived from some principles and structure from ancient Republics; especially the emphasis on civic duty and the opposition to corruption, elitism, aristocracy and monarchy.

 

[HUGGY]

What Does the Democratic Party Stand For?

Why? Are you thinking of voting for Clinton?

 

[-S-]

Another clear example of you not checking your posts before hitting 'send'...

It's not like my argument is unprecedented.

There is no "send' buttom, dumbshit. You really are an obnoxious ass.

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

All I've seen you do is bitch about how you can't read other people's posts and you use superior grammar. Get over yo dumb self.

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

The only thing that rises to your level is a turd in a toilet bowl. What you dont know about grammar would fill volumes. What you think you know that is dead wrong would fill the entire bandwidth of this site.
You are a joke, a non-hacker.

Ha! Good one! Scatological humor is great.

Now, back to the point:

First, I'd like to point out that I never claimed to know everything. Only more than you, and others of your ilk, such as "To see an idiot's POV, one must BE an idiot, so The Rabbi is smart!" Superman.

You seem to blame me for your ineffective topic.
It's not my fault your thread is falling apart because your opening post was flawed in it's execution

Next time, think before you type. That is all you have to do. It's a very, very simple procedure.

Nothing wrong with the OP. I cant help it if you are reading disabled. Maybe remedial help?
Anyway you have nothing to add here but snark and insults. Lord knows you ran out of actual arguments after the first sentence of the first post. And that's being generous.
So either shape up or you're getting the Iggy treatment.

The 'Iggy' treatment?

I'm guessing that's where you hide from my opinions and arguments?

I find it interesting that I've never heard of a moderate or progressive poster threatening to ignore others on these forums, but I can think of at least 4 conservative posters that threaten the 'ignore'.
At least 2 of those 4 do it for no other reason than being offended by the popular 'Republican clown' avatars.
Just a trend I've noticed.

I guess the threat is supposed to be scary, or something. I don't know.

Well if ignoring me is what you want, feel free. Nobody's stopping you.
If anything, it's one less conservative I have to perpetually educate.

 

[Kosh]

There is no "send' buttom, dumbshit. You really are an obnoxious ass.

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

The only thing that rises to your level is a turd in a toilet bowl. What you dont know about grammar would fill volumes. What you think you know that is dead wrong would fill the entire bandwidth of this site.
You are a joke, a non-hacker.

Ha! Good one! Scatological humor is great.

Now, back to the point:

First, I'd like to point out that I never claimed to know everything. Only more than you, and others of your ilk, such as "To see an idiot's POV, one must BE an idiot, so The Rabbi is smart!" Superman.

You seem to blame me for your ineffective topic.
It's not my fault your thread is falling apart because your opening post was flawed in it's execution

Next time, think before you type. That is all you have to do. It's a very, very simple procedure.

Nothing wrong with the OP. I cant help it if you are reading disabled. Maybe remedial help?
Anyway you have nothing to add here but snark and insults. Lord knows you ran out of actual arguments after the first sentence of the first post. And that's being generous.
So either shape up or you're getting the Iggy treatment.

The 'Iggy' treatment?

I'm guessing that's where you hide from my opinions and arguments?

I find it interesting that I've never heard of a moderate or progressive poster threatening to ignore others on these forums, but I can think of at least 4 conservative posters that threaten the 'ignore'.
At least 2 of those 4 do it for no other reason than being offended by the popular 'Republican clown' avatars.
Just a trend I've noticed.

I guess the threat is supposed to be scary, or something. I don't know.

Well if ignoring me is what you want, feel free. Nobody's stopping you.
If anything, it's one less conservative I have to perpetually educate.

There are no progressives on this board only far left drones and they often put people on ignore as they hate freedom of speech, unless it is far left approved..

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no "send' buttom, dumbshit. You really are an obnoxious ass.

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

He's too stupid to read and comprehend a simple sentence. And then blames everyone else for his failures. IOW, he's a democrat.

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

The only thing that rises to your level is a turd in a toilet bowl. What you dont know about grammar would fill volumes. What you think you know that is dead wrong would fill the entire bandwidth of this site.
You are a joke, a non-hacker.

Ha! Good one! Scatological humor is great.

Now, back to the point:

First, I'd like to point out that I never claimed to know everything. Only more than you, and others of your ilk, such as "To see an idiot's POV, one must BE an idiot, so The Rabbi is smart!" Superman.

You seem to blame me for your ineffective topic.
It's not my fault your thread is falling apart because your opening post was flawed in it's execution

Next time, think before you type. That is all you have to do. It's a very, very simple procedure.

Nothing wrong with the OP. I cant help it if you are reading disabled. Maybe remedial help?
Anyway you have nothing to add here but snark and insults. Lord knows you ran out of actual arguments after the first sentence of the first post. And that's being generous.
So either shape up or you're getting the Iggy treatment.

The 'Iggy' treatment?

I'm guessing that's where you hide from my opinions and arguments?

I find it interesting that I've never heard of a moderate or progressive poster threatening to ignore others on these forums, but I can think of at least 4 conservative posters that threaten the 'ignore'.
At least 2 of those 4 do it for no other reason than being offended by the popular 'Republican clown' avatars.
Just a trend I've noticed.

I guess the threat is supposed to be scary, or something. I don't know.

Well if ignoring me is what you want, feel free. Nobody's stopping you.
If anything, it's one less conservative I have to perpetually educate.

To educate perpetually. Split infinitives are so low class. Like you.
Your claims to "educate" anyone are laughable. You are a time waster. And you are gone.

 

[-S-]

More proof that the far left has no clue about history..

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

Sorry, but no.

It's common knowledge that the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson's time is a completely separate entity from the current Republican Party, which started in Lincoln's time.

Once again the revisionists of the far left will do what they must to rewrite history.

The far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

The term "republican" was in widespread usage from the 1770s to describe the type government the break-away colonies wanted to form: a Republic of three separate branches of government derived from some principles and structure from ancient Republics; especially the emphasis on civic duty and the opposition to corruption, elitism, aristocracy and monarchy.

Great. Random history.

Aaaaaaand my point still stands, one unrelated ejaculation of history 101 notes later:

The Democratic-Republican Party and The Republican Party we have today are separate entities, and always have been.

 

[Kosh]

More proof that the far left has no clue about history..

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

Sorry, but no.

It's common knowledge that the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson's time is a completely separate entity from the current Republican Party, which started in Lincoln's time.

Once again the revisionists of the far left will do what they must to rewrite history.

The far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

The term "republican" was in widespread usage from the 1770s to describe the type government the break-away colonies wanted to form: a Republic of three separate branches of government derived from some principles and structure from ancient Republics; especially the emphasis on civic duty and the opposition to corruption, elitism, aristocracy and monarchy.

Great. Random history.

Aaaaaaand my point still stands, one unrelated ejaculation of history 101 notes later:

The Democratic-Republican Party and The Republican Party we have today are separate entities, and always have been.

See how the far left will watch the world burn than just admit they are wrong!

 

[-S-]

Well, there's no 'buttom' either...

Look guys, I get it.

Sometimes I veer off in a direction that some people dislike, where I talk about things that are hard to grasp (grammar, facts, coherent debate, and whatnot..)

I don't mean to do that, but I just wish that, no offense, you guys would rise to my level, instead of, as Superman said earlier, expecting me to come down to yours.

A rising tide lifts all boats.
I am that tide.
Catch a wave..

The only thing that rises to your level is a turd in a toilet bowl. What you dont know about grammar would fill volumes. What you think you know that is dead wrong would fill the entire bandwidth of this site.
You are a joke, a non-hacker.

Ha! Good one! Scatological humor is great.

Now, back to the point:

First, I'd like to point out that I never claimed to know everything. Only more than you, and others of your ilk, such as "To see an idiot's POV, one must BE an idiot, so The Rabbi is smart!" Superman.

You seem to blame me for your ineffective topic.
It's not my fault your thread is falling apart because your opening post was flawed in it's execution

Next time, think before you type. That is all you have to do. It's a very, very simple procedure.

Nothing wrong with the OP. I cant help it if you are reading disabled. Maybe remedial help?
Anyway you have nothing to add here but snark and insults. Lord knows you ran out of actual arguments after the first sentence of the first post. And that's being generous.
So either shape up or you're getting the Iggy treatment.

The 'Iggy' treatment?

I'm guessing that's where you hide from my opinions and arguments?

I find it interesting that I've never heard of a moderate or progressive poster threatening to ignore others on these forums, but I can think of at least 4 conservative posters that threaten the 'ignore'.
At least 2 of those 4 do it for no other reason than being offended by the popular 'Republican clown' avatars.
Just a trend I've noticed.

I guess the threat is supposed to be scary, or something. I don't know.

Well if ignoring me is what you want, feel free. Nobody's stopping you.
If anything, it's one less conservative I have to perpetually educate.

To educate perpetually. Split infinitives are so low class. Like you.
Your claims to "educate" anyone are laughable. You are a time waster. And you are gone.

 

[-S-]

More proof that the far left has no clue about history..

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

Sorry, but no.

It's common knowledge that the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson's time is a completely separate entity from the current Republican Party, which started in Lincoln's time.

Once again the revisionists of the far left will do what they must to rewrite history.

The far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

The term "republican" was in widespread usage from the 1770s to describe the type government the break-away colonies wanted to form: a Republic of three separate branches of government derived from some principles and structure from ancient Republics; especially the emphasis on civic duty and the opposition to corruption, elitism, aristocracy and monarchy.

Great. Random history.

Aaaaaaand my point still stands, one unrelated ejaculation of history 101 notes later:

The Democratic-Republican Party and The Republican Party we have today are separate entities, and always have been.

See how the far left will watch the world burn than just admit they are wrong!

Sorry to bruise your ego, but I'm right.
And anybody with the power of Google can know for sure in about 10 seconds.