RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You're an old, stupid man

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you attack people because of their skin color too dumbkoff?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    Rusty

    before I answer you, please answer this, respectfully.

    What is the difference between a democrat progressive and a socialist?

    I have never heard anyone articulate the difference

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You're an old, stupid man



    Do you attack people because of their skin color too dumbkoff?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nope. Just older, dumb and ignorant inbreds like you.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh, so you use only age specific hate speech rather than race specific hate speech. Got it.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Teddy Roosevelt's Republican Party is long gone.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Just when you thought Rusty was being as stupid as he could possibly be, he does stupider.

    TR was so mainstream Republican that he ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. LMAO@U You're a moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because all the work he put into keeping corruption at bay, had it hijacked by Taft as a puppet. Hence, why he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party so he could run and keep the country back on the track he brilliantly created after the disastrous Guilded Age.

    What does that have to do with Roosevelt wanting to carry on Lincoln's party in his two terms in the early 1900s?

    I own easily 3-4 bios or Roosevelt, DVDs, etc, so forget trying to win this one, too, moron.

    You've been outdebated and it;s beyond clear you're out of your league, Diapers. ANother bludgeoning for you.  I have so many on you, I've lost count.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose you dum bass. You fashion it Teddy R's Republican Party, when in fact he was a Maverick Republican. You're hopelessly stupid.

    Try using Lincoln next time and you won't look like such an imbecile.

     

    Now go sleep it off, drunkard.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lincoln was Roosevelt's idol, moron.  He was not a maverick at all. He just wasn't a corporate, corrupt stooge like so many of the previous presidents in the Guilded Age who were greased by the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, et al.

    Learn.

    Learn to read. Learn facts.

    Yes, Roosevelt was my favorite president of all time because he was a progressive Republican  like Lincoln and a phenomenal leader on principle. Lincoln is a close second, George Washington, 3rd.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Moron. The Republican party was the Republican party. Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket. You are so dumb it should be a crime.

    [/QUOTE]

    He wasn't forced at all. At the time, he wanted to be like Washington and serve two terms only to make it seem like he wasn't a king like Washington stood on when stepping down.

    He did, then was appalled at all the stuff he did for almost 8 years with Taft either being on the take or being dumb/indifferent from 1909-1912.

    IN fact, their previous friendly relationship was completely fractured.  TeddY ran for president in 1912 on principle.   The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win.

    The whole reason why registered Independent was because I was raised to vote for the person, not the party.

    That's what Roosevelt was doing back then.  If the party becomes corrupt and is taken over by special interests, you can't very well stand behind it, can you?

    I know more about these periods in history than you could ever dream, Diapers. Ever dream.

    Roosevelt wasn't "forced" to do anything.

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course he was forced imbecile. If he could have had the Republican nomination he wouldn't have went 3rd party and handed a win to the Democrats. F'n DUH!

    Go to bed, drunk.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not true. He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election.  Taft woud have had to have resigned for what you're saying to be true.   LOL

    Two Republicans aren't going to be nominated, dummy.

    You should get into a new institution.  Magnolia Manor is clearly not very well run. lmao

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong moron. Roosevelt did challenge Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912, and seeing that he was losing at the convention went out and started the Bull Moose Party (Progressive Party).

    You lose again, because you're an imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I said when I said he didn't have the money.  My god, are you dumb or what?

    LOL!

    It's like you're angry Roosevelt was not corrupt and a puppet like our last Republican president. LMAO

    Keep painting yourself into a corner!  The board loves watching it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lying piece of crap. Quote where you said to me "he didn't have the money". Find it. Quote it. LIAR!

    Nice deflection try phony.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Mao wasn't a dicatator, dummy.

    [/QUOTE]

    No no no, he just did the will of the people mental case. LMAO@U

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Teddy Roosevelt's Republican Party is long gone.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Just when you thought Rusty was being as stupid as he could possibly be, he does stupider.

    TR was so mainstream Republican that he ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. LMAO@U You're a moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because all the work he put into keeping corruption at bay, had it hijacked by Taft as a puppet. Hence, why he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party so he could run and keep the country back on the track he brilliantly created after the disastrous Guilded Age.

    What does that have to do with Roosevelt wanting to carry on Lincoln's party in his two terms in the early 1900s?

    I own easily 3-4 bios or Roosevelt, DVDs, etc, so forget trying to win this one, too, moron.

    You've been outdebated and it;s beyond clear you're out of your league, Diapers. ANother bludgeoning for you.  I have so many on you, I've lost count.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose you dum bass. You fashion it Teddy R's Republican Party, when in fact he was a Maverick Republican. You're hopelessly stupid.

    Try using Lincoln next time and you won't look like such an imbecile.

     

    Now go sleep it off, drunkard.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lincoln was Roosevelt's idol, moron.  He was not a maverick at all. He just wasn't a corporate, corrupt stooge like so many of the previous presidents in the Guilded Age who were greased by the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, et al.

    Learn.

    Learn to read. Learn facts.

    Yes, Roosevelt was my favorite president of all time because he was a progressive Republican  like Lincoln and a phenomenal leader on principle. Lincoln is a close second, George Washington, 3rd.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Moron. The Republican party was the Republican party. Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket. You are so dumb it should be a crime.

    [/QUOTE]

    He wasn't forced at all. At the time, he wanted to be like Washington and serve two terms only to make it seem like he wasn't a king like Washington stood on when stepping down.

    He did, then was appalled at all the stuff he did for almost 8 years with Taft either being on the take or being dumb/indifferent from 1909-1912.

    IN fact, their previous friendly relationship was completely fractured.  TeddY ran for president in 1912 on principle.   The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win.

    The whole reason why registered Independent was because I was raised to vote for the person, not the party.

    That's what Roosevelt was doing back then.  If the party becomes corrupt and is taken over by special interests, you can't very well stand behind it, can you?

    I know more about these periods in history than you could ever dream, Diapers. Ever dream.

    Roosevelt wasn't "forced" to do anything.

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course he was forced imbecile. If he could have had the Republican nomination he wouldn't have went 3rd party and handed a win to the Democrats. F'n DUH!

    Go to bed, drunk.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not true. He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election.  Taft woud have had to have resigned for what you're saying to be true.   LOL

    Two Republicans aren't going to be nominated, dummy.

    You should get into a new institution.  Magnolia Manor is clearly not very well run. lmao

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong moron. Roosevelt did challenge Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912, and seeing that he was losing at the convention went out and started the Bull Moose Party (Progressive Party).

    You lose again, because you're an imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I said when I said he didn't have the money.  My god, are you dumb or what?

    LOL!

    It's like you're angry Roosevelt was not corrupt and a puppet like our last Republican president. LMAO

    Keep painting yourself into a corner!  The board loves watching it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lying piece of crap. Quote where you said to me "he didn't have the money". Find it. Quote it. LIAR!

    Nice deflection try phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    "The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win."

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You just said "He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election".

    Now you're going back and claiming it was money.

     

    He ran against Taft for the nomination and lost imbecile. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT. That's the bottom line, and that's what I said.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sobchack. Show Sobchack's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?”  

    Mahatma Gandhi

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Teddy Roosevelt's Republican Party is long gone.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Just when you thought Rusty was being as stupid as he could possibly be, he does stupider.

    TR was so mainstream Republican that he ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. LMAO@U You're a moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because all the work he put into keeping corruption at bay, had it hijacked by Taft as a puppet. Hence, why he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party so he could run and keep the country back on the track he brilliantly created after the disastrous Guilded Age.

    What does that have to do with Roosevelt wanting to carry on Lincoln's party in his two terms in the early 1900s?

    I own easily 3-4 bios or Roosevelt, DVDs, etc, so forget trying to win this one, too, moron.

    You've been outdebated and it;s beyond clear you're out of your league, Diapers. ANother bludgeoning for you.  I have so many on you, I've lost count.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose you dum bass. You fashion it Teddy R's Republican Party, when in fact he was a Maverick Republican. You're hopelessly stupid.

    Try using Lincoln next time and you won't look like such an imbecile.

     

    Now go sleep it off, drunkard.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lincoln was Roosevelt's idol, moron.  He was not a maverick at all. He just wasn't a corporate, corrupt stooge like so many of the previous presidents in the Guilded Age who were greased by the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, et al.

    Learn.

    Learn to read. Learn facts.

    Yes, Roosevelt was my favorite president of all time because he was a progressive Republican  like Lincoln and a phenomenal leader on principle. Lincoln is a close second, George Washington, 3rd.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Moron. The Republican party was the Republican party. Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket. You are so dumb it should be a crime.

    [/QUOTE]

    He wasn't forced at all. At the time, he wanted to be like Washington and serve two terms only to make it seem like he wasn't a king like Washington stood on when stepping down.

    He did, then was appalled at all the stuff he did for almost 8 years with Taft either being on the take or being dumb/indifferent from 1909-1912.

    IN fact, their previous friendly relationship was completely fractured.  TeddY ran for president in 1912 on principle.   The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win.

    The whole reason why registered Independent was because I was raised to vote for the person, not the party.

    That's what Roosevelt was doing back then.  If the party becomes corrupt and is taken over by special interests, you can't very well stand behind it, can you?

    I know more about these periods in history than you could ever dream, Diapers. Ever dream.

    Roosevelt wasn't "forced" to do anything.

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course he was forced imbecile. If he could have had the Republican nomination he wouldn't have went 3rd party and handed a win to the Democrats. F'n DUH!

    Go to bed, drunk.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not true. He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election.  Taft woud have had to have resigned for what you're saying to be true.   LOL

    Two Republicans aren't going to be nominated, dummy.

    You should get into a new institution.  Magnolia Manor is clearly not very well run. lmao

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong moron. Roosevelt did challenge Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912, and seeing that he was losing at the convention went out and started the Bull Moose Party (Progressive Party).

    You lose again, because you're an imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I said when I said he didn't have the money.  My god, are you dumb or what?

    LOL!

    It's like you're angry Roosevelt was not corrupt and a puppet like our last Republican president. LMAO

    Keep painting yourself into a corner!  The board loves watching it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lying piece of crap. Quote where you said to me "he didn't have the money". Find it. Quote it. LIAR!

    Nice deflection try phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    "The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win."

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You just said "He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election".

    Now you're going back and claiming it was money.

     

    He ran against Taft for the nomination and lost imbecile. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT. That's the bottom line, and that's what I said.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he didn't have the support of the Republicans. Taft had 4 years to be corrupted. This is well documented.

    It's why Roosevelt created another party and wanted to stop the corruption.+

    [/QUOTE]


    I said, "Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket.", and you just agreed.

    Thanks for finally admitting I was right all along. About time.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Of course he didn't have the support of the Republicans. Taft had 4 years to be corrupted. This is well documented.

    It's why Roosevelt created another party and wanted to stop the corruption.+

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny stuff dumbkoff.

    "On October 27, 1911, however, Roosevelt and Taft's deteriorating friendship officially came to an end when Taft's administration filed an antitrust suit against US Steel, which Roosevelt labeled as a "good trust". wikipedia

    So Taft's "corruption" that finally lost support from TR, was Taft trying to breakup a monopoly. LMAO@U

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Mao wasn't a dicatator, dummy.

    [/QUOTE]

    No no no, he just did the will of the people mental case. LMAO@U

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually and sadly he did.  Chiang Kai Shek got a raw deal. During and after World War II, the Chinese were a mess.  

    It has nothing to do with the will of the people.  There wasn't a Democracy pre-Mao in China, moron.

    You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. LMAO

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay, you are obviously so shytfaced you can't even make a little sense at this juncture. I'll let this be the end of futile efforts to make sense of your ramblings for this day.

    But..... I will likely be back to bludgeon you again tomorrow.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Teddy Roosevelt's Republican Party is long gone.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Just when you thought Rusty was being as stupid as he could possibly be, he does stupider.

    TR was so mainstream Republican that he ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. LMAO@U You're a moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because all the work he put into keeping corruption at bay, had it hijacked by Taft as a puppet. Hence, why he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party so he could run and keep the country back on the track he brilliantly created after the disastrous Guilded Age.

    What does that have to do with Roosevelt wanting to carry on Lincoln's party in his two terms in the early 1900s?

    I own easily 3-4 bios or Roosevelt, DVDs, etc, so forget trying to win this one, too, moron.

    You've been outdebated and it;s beyond clear you're out of your league, Diapers. ANother bludgeoning for you.  I have so many on you, I've lost count.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose you dum bass. You fashion it Teddy R's Republican Party, when in fact he was a Maverick Republican. You're hopelessly stupid.

    Try using Lincoln next time and you won't look like such an imbecile.

     

    Now go sleep it off, drunkard.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lincoln was Roosevelt's idol, moron.  He was not a maverick at all. He just wasn't a corporate, corrupt stooge like so many of the previous presidents in the Guilded Age who were greased by the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, et al.

    Learn.

    Learn to read. Learn facts.

    Yes, Roosevelt was my favorite president of all time because he was a progressive Republican  like Lincoln and a phenomenal leader on principle. Lincoln is a close second, George Washington, 3rd.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Moron. The Republican party was the Republican party. Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket. You are so dumb it should be a crime.

    [/QUOTE]

    He wasn't forced at all. At the time, he wanted to be like Washington and serve two terms only to make it seem like he wasn't a king like Washington stood on when stepping down.

    He did, then was appalled at all the stuff he did for almost 8 years with Taft either being on the take or being dumb/indifferent from 1909-1912.

    IN fact, their previous friendly relationship was completely fractured.  TeddY ran for president in 1912 on principle.   The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win.

    The whole reason why registered Independent was because I was raised to vote for the person, not the party.

    That's what Roosevelt was doing back then.  If the party becomes corrupt and is taken over by special interests, you can't very well stand behind it, can you?

    I know more about these periods in history than you could ever dream, Diapers. Ever dream.

    Roosevelt wasn't "forced" to do anything.

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course he was forced imbecile. If he could have had the Republican nomination he wouldn't have went 3rd party and handed a win to the Democrats. F'n DUH!

    Go to bed, drunk.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not true. He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election.  Taft woud have had to have resigned for what you're saying to be true.   LOL

    Two Republicans aren't going to be nominated, dummy.

    You should get into a new institution.  Magnolia Manor is clearly not very well run. lmao

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong moron. Roosevelt did challenge Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912, and seeing that he was losing at the convention went out and started the Bull Moose Party (Progressive Party).

    You lose again, because you're an imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I said when I said he didn't have the money.  My god, are you dumb or what?

    LOL!

    It's like you're angry Roosevelt was not corrupt and a puppet like our last Republican president. LMAO

    Keep painting yourself into a corner!  The board loves watching it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lying piece of crap. Quote where you said to me "he didn't have the money". Find it. Quote it. LIAR!

    Nice deflection try phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    "The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win."

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You just said "He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election".

    Now you're going back and claiming it was money.

     

    He ran against Taft for the nomination and lost imbecile. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT. That's the bottom line, and that's what I said.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he didn't have the support of the Republicans. Taft had 4 years to be corrupted. This is well documented.

    It's why Roosevelt created another party and wanted to stop the corruption.+

    [/QUOTE]


    I said, "Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket.", and you just agreed.

    Thanks for finally admitting I was right all along. About time.

    [/QUOTE]

    He wasn't "forced", though. Once he realized the corruption he formed his own party on priniciple. He dould have not run at all. No one "forced" him to do anything.

    [/QUOTE]

    DUH!!!!!!

    He was forced to run with another party if he wanted to try to be president dum bass. The Republicans had rejected him. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

    God you are stupid. (And very drunk.)

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rusty

    before I answer you, please answer this, respectfully.

    What is the difference between a democrat progressive and a socialist?

    I have never heard anyone articulate the difference

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not Rusty so I will not speak for him but that is a pretty simple question and by asking it I  wonder if you actually know what socialism is. Socialism is simply an economic system. Many countries, including the United States use facets of socialism without being considered a socialist country. Many capitilasts are very progressive (think hollywood if you must) on a lot of issues. A progressive is simply a liberal on a nations political spectrum. Supporting gay marriage when it is unpopular (think circa 1990) does not make you a socialist but it certainly makes you progressive. Being opposed to child labor and supporting the minimum wage in 1890 was progressive. Supporting woman's suffrage in the 19th century would have been considered progressive. Supporting civil rights in the 1930's would be considered progressive. Supporting Mandela in the early 1980's would have been condsidered progressive. In many instances a progressive can be a socialist just like a conservative can be a fascist but in the united states the majority of progressives are far from being socialists just like the majority of conservatives in America are nowhere near fascist. Much of what we take for granted now were first supported by progressives and totally opposed by conservatives. Only the most progressive supported freedom of religion in the 16th century. Now virtually everyone in the western world supports it. Our Declaration of Independance as well as our bill of rights are both incredibly progressive documents. To this day (unless it passed recently) the United Kingdom still does not have an equivalent to our bill of rights and they would be considered one of the most liberal democracies in the world.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    Wow....has to be one of the most painfull things I have ever tried to read....

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rusty

    before I answer you, please answer this, respectfully.

    What is the difference between a democrat progressive and a socialist?

    I have never heard anyone articulate the difference

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not Rusty so I will not speak for him but that is a pretty simple question and by asking it I  wonder if you actually know what socialism is. Socialism is simply an economic system. Many countries, including the United States use facets of socialism without being considered a socialist country. Many capitilasts are very progressive (think hollywood if you must) on a lot of issues. A progressive is simply a liberal on a nations political spectrum. Supporting gay marriage when it is unpopular (think circa 1990) does not make you a socialist but it certainly makes you progressive. Being opposed to child labor and supporting the minimum wage in 1890 was progressive. Supporting woman's suffrage in the 19th century would have been considered progressive. Supporting civil rights in the 1930's would be considered progressive. Supporting Mandela in the early 1980's would have been condsidered progressive. In many instances a progressive can be a socialist just like a conservative can be a fascist but in the united states the majority of progressives are far from being socialists just like the majority of conservatives in America are nowhere near fascist. Much of what we take for granted now were first supported by progressives and totally opposed by conservatives. Only the most progressive supported freedom of religion in the 16th century. Now virtually everyone in the western world supports it. Our Declaration of Independance as well as our bill of rights are both incredibly progressive documents. To this day (unless it passed recently) the United Kingdom still does not have an equivalent to our bill of rights and they would be considered one of the most liberal democracies in the world.

    [/QUOTE]

    Americans like to label things as "socialism" or "communism" simply to dismiss them as bad.  It's kind of silly.  If the country is ever to get better managed and make any progress at all, people have to stop doing this silly labeling and actually discuss policy. 

    It's a reality that there's a need for fairly extensive government in large, complex modern societies.  The only societies nowadays that exist with truly limited governments are third-world hellholes.  Once we stop being children and pretending that government is unnecessary we can actually proceed to thinking about how we make government work better.  And when we do that, we don't need to be dismissing ideas out-of-hand by labeling them "socialist" or "communist."  Instead every proposal should be reviewed on its merits and if an idea that seems socialist actually works, there should be no bias against implementing it. 

     

     

     

Share