Why do people hate Liberals?

[Bfgrn]

As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...

Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era

You go with that Sparky. The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...

I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...

You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse. Good luck with that.

Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.

And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[eflatminor]

Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era

You go with that Sparky. The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...

I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...

You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse. Good luck with that.

Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.

And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties. Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive. Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending. Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.

Blind bias, it's so ugly.

 

[Bfgrn]

You go with that Sparky. The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...

I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...

You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse. Good luck with that.

Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.

And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties. Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive. Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending. Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.

Blind bias, it's so ugly.

Bias? What is calling conservatives progressives??

The liberal era that started with the New Deal through the Great Society was an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the vast expansion of individual rights, men on the moon and the BIGGEST middle class in the history of the world...

The conservative era that followed has built.......................................

The BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

Obama's world record spending...

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

 

[Foxfyre]

The bottom line is whether we value freedom or whether we are willing to hand over more and more of our own lives and destiny for others to control and manage for us.

Modern day conservatives aka classical liberals do not want to give up inividual control of their lives and destiny. And they expect to do for themselves and pay for it themselves.

Modern day liberals say they want liberty but they don't want to be held responsibile or accountable for it and therefore give up more and more individual control of their lives and liberty to others to control and manage for them. Nobody can be free when they depend on the other guy to give them what they want.

 

[eflatminor]

Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.

And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties. Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive. Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending. Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.

Blind bias, it's so ugly.

Bias? What is calling conservatives progressives??

The liberal era that started with the New Deal through the Great Society was an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the vast expansion of individual rights, men on the moon and the BIGGEST middle class in the history of the world...

The conservative era that followed has built.......................................

The BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

Obama's world record spending...

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

I called many Republicans Progressives. Whether those meddlers call themselves conservatives or not matter little. They're meddlers, just like the Democrats that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.

Pass.

And lastly, your chart is bullshit. Annualized growth in spending is one thing. ACTUAL dollars spent is what really matters and in that regard, Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have.

Again, you're demonstrating overwhelming bias that's making you look downright silly.

 

[eflatminor]

Nobody can be free when they depend on the other guy to give them what they want.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's the thing though eflat. It has been my observation that most modern American liberals do not want liberty as much as they want control over others and gratification for themselves, So almost all debate by cutting and pasting often dishonest big blocks of gray type along with pretty graphs and charts made up on some liberal site to show the sins of conservative administrations or consevative policies, etc.

But they won't discuss those policies because they can't articulate them or understand them. The only means of debate they have is to belittle or diminish or criticize or demonize others. Some conservatives are as bad, but most real conservatives can discuss a policy without trashing somebody.

Most liberals cannot.

(To specifically address the thread topic, though 'hate' is too strong a word to describe the syndrome.)

 

[Bfgrn]

The bottom line is whether we value freedom or whether we are willing to hand over more and more of our own lives and destiny for others to control and manage for us.

Modern day conservatives aka classical liberals do not want to give up inividual control of their lives and destiny. And they expect to do for themselves and pay for it themselves.

Modern day liberals say they want liberty but they don't want to be held responsibile or accountable for it and therefore give up more and more individual control of their lives and liberty to others to control and manage for them. Nobody can be free when they depend on the other guy to give them what they want.

Utter BULLSHIT propaganda parroting...

The BOTTOM LINE:

Liberals PAID for what they spent. JFK and LBJ faced the possibility of budget SURPLUSES.

Conservatives put America on the Beijing credit card.

The true irony of Ronald Reagan; he created a mythical 'welfare queen' used to deconstruct the middle class and trash the poor. Yet Ronald Reagan was the ultimate welfare queen.

As the liberal era that began with the New Deal came to an end with the splintering of the Democratic Party brought about by assassination of Presidents and future Presidents, the Vietnam War fiasco and conservative money creating 'think tanks', JFK and LBJ, the last two Presidents of that era faced the awful specter how to deal with revenue SURPLUSES. Public debt was not even part of our lexicon...

Enter Reagan, the welfare queen. Put everything on the Beijing credit card and dump the bill on our children, grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

 

[Bfgrn]

Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties. Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive. Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending. Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.

Blind bias, it's so ugly.

Bias? What is calling conservatives progressives??

The liberal era that started with the New Deal through the Great Society was an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the vast expansion of individual rights, men on the moon and the BIGGEST middle class in the history of the world...

The conservative era that followed has built.......................................

The BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

Obama's world record spending...

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

I called many Republicans Progressives. Whether those meddlers call themselves conservatives or not matter little. They're meddlers, just like the Democrats that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.

Pass.

And lastly, your chart is bullshit. Annualized growth in spending is one thing. ACTUAL dollars spent is what really matters and in that regard, Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have.

Again, you're demonstrating overwhelming bias that's making you look downright silly.

If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread topic is why do people hate liberals. The thread topic would have been more constructive and prompted more response had the title been "Why do conservatives have a problem with liberals?"

Let's look at one example and see if any liberals (or all our conservative friends) for that matter can address it without bashing somebody.

Bfgm's cut and paste shows Obama with a 1.4 increase in spending because it gives 2009 spending to Bush. But that in itself is a lie, because if Obama had gone with Bush's 2009 budget, the picture would have been very diferent. But the graph suggests that TARP was part of that budget, when it wasn't, and doesn't acknowledge that half of it was spent by Bush in 2008 and was approved, supported, and voted by Barack Obama who spent the other half in 2009. It doesn't acknowledge that the final 2008/2009 appropriations bills passed by a Democratic super majority in 2009 and signed by Barack Obama were all over budget. And it doesn't acknowledge that the stimulus package, just under a trillion dollars, was also off budget.

So now let's do the math.

Say the 2009 budget passed by the Bush administration was $1,000.

Let's say Bush budgets and expenditures for his last four years were:

$600
$700
$800
$900

He would have increased spending by 33% over those four years.

So Barack Obama spent that $1,000 (rightfully a Bush expenditure) in 2009 but then spent another $1,000 for a total of $2,000 which is pretty much what happened in 2009. That extra $1,000 isn't reflected in Mediamatters graph. And once the extra thousand was spent, they have kept spending it.

So for his first four years you have

$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300

So Obama can claim a roughly 1.4 increase in spending while in fact he has spent an enormously greater amount of money than previous administrations.

And while the numbers are not truly proportionate to the actual government expenditures, THAT is honest analysis rather than the dishonest graph from Mediamatters intended for use as propaganda to avoid the actual policy discussion..

 

[Bfgrn]

The thread topic is why do people hate liberals. The thread topic would have been more constructive and prompted more response had the title been "Why do conservatives have a problem with liberals?"

Let's look at one example and see if any liberals (or all our conservative friends) for that matter can address it without bashing somebody.

Bfgm's cut and paste shows Obama with a 1.4 increase in spending because it gives 2009 spending to Bush. But that in itself is a lie, because if Obama had gone with Bush's 2009 budget, the picture would have been very diferent. But the graph suggests that TARP was part of that budget, when it wasn't, and doesn't acknowledge that half of it was spent by Bush in 2008 and was approved, supported, and voted by Barack Obama who spent the other half in 2009. It doesn't acknowledge that the final 2008/2009 appropriations bills passed by a Democratic super majority in 2009 and signed by Barack Obama were all over budget. And it doesn't acknowledge that the stimulus package, just under a trillion dollars, was also off budget.

So now let's do the math.

Say the 2009 budget passed by the Bush administration was $1,000.

Let's say Bush budgets and expenditures for his last four years were:

$600
$700
$800
$900

He would have increased spending by 33% over those four years.

So Barack Obama spent that $1,000 (rightfully a Bush expenditure) in 2009 but then spent another $1,000 for a total of $2,000 which is pretty much what happened in 2009. That extra $1,000 isn't reflected in Mediamatters graph. And once the extra thousand was spent, they have kept spending it.

So for his first four years you have

$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300

So Obama can claim a roughly 1.4 increase in spending while in fact he has spent an enormously greater amount of money than previous administrations.

And while the numbers are not truly proportionate to the actual government expenditures, THAT is honest analysis rather than the dishonest graph from Mediamatters intended for use as propaganda to avoid the actual policy discussion..

My 'cut and paste' is not from Mediamatters. The original 'graph' is from the Wall Street Journal. I used the Mediamatters graph because of SIZE.

What President put the 2 wars IN the budget? Was it Bush?

Obama spending binge never happened

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

 

[kaz]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals

I'll explain it to you, and it's simple. If liberals wanted to go off and do their own thing, we'd be fine with you. However, you want government based on 50% + 1 to use the power of guns to force your policies on everyone. Then you take our money, to do it, kick us in the balls and blame us for it. That ... is why liberals are hated.

 

[Foxfyre]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals

I'll explain it to you, and it's simple. If liberals wanted to go off and do their own thing, we'd be fine with you. However, you want government based on 50% + 1 to use the power of guns to force your policies on everyone. Then you take our money, to do it, kick us in the balls and blame us for it. That ... is why liberals are hated.

That's it in a nutshell. Despite the dishonesty in who they blame and accuse for everything that goes wrong--okay, conservatives are sometimes guilty of that too--they want to be better, more noble, more righteous people. Save the whales. Save the planet. Lift up the poor. Feed the hungry. Provide all the good things of life to whomever doesn't have them.

But they want somebody else to pay for all that while they take the credit.

Not exactly a How to win friends and influence people bell ringer.

 

[eflatminor]

If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???

Same shit the Progressives always spend money on - programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers afforded to the federal government.

Not to worry, they know best...

 

[Bfgrn]

If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???

Same shit the Progressives always spend money on - programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers afforded to the federal government.

Not to worry, they know best...

Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for almost a decade. WHY didn't they end 'programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers'. WHY did they grossly INCREASE the debt???

And they are NOT progressives or liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.

 

[eflatminor]

If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???

Same shit the Progressives always spend money on - programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers afforded to the federal government.

Not to worry, they know best...

Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for almost a decade. WHY didn't they end 'programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers'. WHY did they grossly INCREASE the debt???

And they are NOT progressives or liberals.

You can call them whatever you like. They spent, meddled, and increased the size of government like Progressives. If it walks like a duck...

Once again, your blind bias prevents you from objectively considering the issues. The problem is not the Rs or even the Ds, it's those from either party that operate outside of their enumerated powers, meddling and spending where they have no business in the first place. They're doing more harm than good...far more.

But I'm sure YOUR guys would fix everything...

 

[Bfgrn]

And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.

Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.

But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...

And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED.

The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.

WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.

Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.

But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...

And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED.

The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.

WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have. They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology. What they see as the role of the federal government does.

When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept. But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.

 

[Immanuel]

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.

So, since you can't defend your party, you just change the names and say "nah, nah,nah, we are better than you. We are now the party of Licoln. We are more compassionate. We are smarter. We are more tolerant. We are not as corrupt. Therefore, you need to let us tell you how to live, but it is you who are the authoritarians, not us."

Let me ask you this. What HAS a Democrat done for us in the last 52 years? Can you name one thing that does not equate to "drop 'em and bend over"?

Good lord, do you ever actually read your posts critically?

Imminent

You know Immie, there are a lot of clueless right wing turds on this board. I never considered you as one of them. But that opinion is changing.

ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored. Civil rights, voter rights, women's rights, worker's rights, immigrant's rights, Veteran's benefits, consumer protection, education for ALL.

There is an axiom: two groups of people vote Republican; millionaires and suckers.

Which group do you belong to Immie?

And I never considered you a flat out liar until this post.

Come on give us actual examples rather than BS "we did all this stuff for you", because everything you just mentioned is pure bullshit.

What civil rights legislation came from Dems in the last 52 years? voter rights? women's rights?worker's rights? immigrant's rights?Veteran's benefits?consumer protection?education? What have you really done for us except told us what you have done for us?

Next you will tell me Obamacare is good for me! by the way before you do the major provisions of that POS was written by Reps. Dems are thieves and liars just like there Rep counterparts.

The Lib bastards gave us Roe and condemned more than 50 million human beings to death. Oh that is right, that is a godsend in your mind.

The only voter rights issue I can think of from libs is the attempt to allow millions of illegals to vote by squelching voter ID requirements. Another "godsend"?

Immie