[econjack]

Debating with a liberal is an exercise in talking with someone who doesn't bother to find out the facts of what they believe. Sadly, there's no current events test to vote.

[Nifster]

You just can’t fix stupid

[KitJ]

bump

[exnavy]

The top seven richest politicians in DC are democrats.

[USS Alaska]

In a debate with a friend who intends to vote for Obozo, I asked her: "Why?"

I have a few ex-friends that expressed their intention to vote for obama, but no discussion using logic will change their small, closed semi-comatose shriveling organ that at one time was a brain.

Save your time and go take a nap.

[LibLieSlayer]

Hand her ignorant arse a copy of the communist manifesto and cut her loose. She will either wake up or realize that she has been a communist all of her life.

LLS

[monocle]

Enable v. Tough Love

[bert]

The usage of the word support is as euphemism for the word enslave.

The Democrats enslave the poor more than the Republicans. The war on poverty was a grand scheme for enslavement. It is now carried on into the third generation of slaves.

[BizBroker]

“Because Democrats support the poor and Republicans only support the rich and business.” Given that Democrats controlled the Senate in all years but 9 since 1950 and the House for all but 7 years, do you really think they want to end poverty or control the poor through handouts?” She said: “They want to end it.”

My response is always:

Do you believe that politicians act in their own self interest to hold onto power? Answer 95% of the time: “yes”.

Then I ask; Since that is the case,how would it be a benefit to Democrats if there were fewer poor people? Wouldn’t that cut into their power base? Shouldn’t Democrats then want there to be as many poor people as possible? And since Republicans are for the rich, wouldn’t it benefit them to make sure there were as many rich people as possible? I mean, how could they win an election otherwise? Assuming your premise is true.