Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Vote Republican. Millions and millions and millions of people do.

Posted 7 years ago on Feb. 27, 2012, 3:30 p.m. EST by FreeDiscussion5 (12)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How anyone could vote for the 50 year failed liberal democrat agenda is beyond me. The poor that vote democrat just keep getting poorer and lots, much, more pooorrrerrrrr. You get what you vote for and if you like being poor,, vote democrat and you will love what you voted for.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

There hasn't been a liberal agenda driving politics since LBJ.

However, there are reasons to vote republican:


[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

ep@1nter : IF "FreeDiscussions, 2 ; 3 & 4" are 'The TrashyBot', what are the odds that "FreeDiscussion5" is 'bona fide' ?!! ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

All the "freediscussion" asswipes are clearly the same. But i wouldn't confuse him with Thrassy, who actually supports OWS.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Really ?!!! OK 'epa1nter', we'll just have to agree to disagree on that matter of "Trashy" and his alleged "support" for OWS !! No problem, as agreement is not necessary as long as "forewarned is forearmed" !

ad iudicium ...

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

I appreciate the warning. But I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this one. It might be best or us to let it go. You may know something I don't (in fact I'm sure you know a LOT that I don't ) but I have come to respect both of you on the basis of what I have read on these fora.

Still, I am grateful for your protective concern. Thanks (sincerely).

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Wise words & thanx ;-)

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

"LBJ" I thought it was a typo. You thought you meant BJ and you were talking about Clinton. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by nytefury (-57) 7 years ago

"LBJ" Doesn't that stand for "Lewinsky Blow Job"?

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Go fuck your sister. Again.

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

YOU are the RESULT of a liberal agenda.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

You are the result of a failed abortion that resulted in brain damage.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

So you should be happy for me. I dont think you are however. Dont know why you hate so much.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

I don't hate much, just you, and a few select other brain damaged trolls.

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

I must be doing something right then. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I love how this country has been running for over 200 years WITHOUT an OWS and anything I can do to preserve the American way of life,,,,,, I'm the man.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

I love how you come here for the specific reason to spread lies and disinformation, distortions and hatred. It's psychotic by any standard.

You must be TERRIFIED of the possibility of OWS succeeding to spend so much time and energy here trying (spectacularly unsuccessfully) to undermine it.. Public mental masturbation must be fun.

But thanks for admitting that you are nothing but a troll (as if everybody didn't know already)..

Glad you're proud to be brain damaged, too.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

I encourage you,,,, ENCOURAGE you,,, to continue to vote the liberal agenda. YOU,,, will continue to get what you voted for and whining about here. I'm with YOU all the way.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Excellent. My liberal agenda demands that you leave this forum permanently, and perhaps even use one of your many guns to help you leave this planet.

Simply repeating a lie doesn't make it truer, Herr Goebbels. It is still a lie; your preferred form of communication. There has been no liberal agenda driving politics since Johnson. The very reason for the anger at Obama is the fact that he betrayed the progressive base that elected him, and you know that from lurking on these fora.

You have no honor. You are not a "the" man or even anything approaching being a man of any sort. Integrity and honesty are required to meet those standards, and your never-ending lies and distortions show you are absent those qualities.

[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 7 years ago

How's Scott Walker working out by the way?

Guy created so many high paying jobs he's a real American hero, just ask all those well-to-do voters who signed his recall petition.

... when a multimillion dollar publicity campaign bankrolled by the cock brothers can't even save your ass, you you know you are a real superstar.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

If YOU want to spend time thinking about Walker,,, go for it. Dont let me stop you. While you are doing that,,,,, another day of the liberal agenda is sucking more people into poverty. Poverty,,, you know,,, that THING that liberal democrats have talked about solving for 50 years. One MUST ASSUME,,, you solved that problem???? Are the rich liberal democrats that you vote for getting poorer or richer as you worry about Walker. YOU,,,,, have gotten what you have voted for. You should be very happy with the 50th birthday party. CELEBRATE your successes!!!!! (sorry,,, you dont have ONE, and it is getting worse)

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 7 years ago

I mention Walker only because he is the poster child for republican policy, and it doesn't appear to work very well in real life.

Liberal agenda?

You sure, it has absolutely nothing to do with blowing trillions on war... or maybe inflation caused by printing up trillions of dollars to pay for the war? Perhaps the globalized race to the bottom has something to do with it too.

I doubt all the social aid dished out over the last 10 years is equal to the cost of one Shock & Awe campaign; and imagine how many tax cuts you could throw at those rich job creators for the price of just one year in Iraq.

In fact now that I think about it, why are they busy funding massive infrastructure projects over there, and not here? Oh right, because good 'ol republican Dubya blew up their country looking for non-existent WMDs, and couldn't just bail out after because the collapse of the Iraqi government would have torpedoed the oil market and the world economy (and Dick Cheney's stock in Halliburton).

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

If Im not mistaken,, I may be,,, but I dont think so,,,, the poor was getting poorer EVERY YEAR even before Bush took office and spent money on the wars,,,,,, I would think you MUST agree? Why do you keep kicking the same dead dog placing poor because of Iraq or WMD's? You keep using that over and over again. Your shock and awe usage doesnt work.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 7 years ago

I agree about the poor, but you'd have to agree it got a lot worse under Bush. I think globalization also has a lot to do with it, as do policies which work to consolidate wealth in the hands of a small number of people. To some extent that's also natural effect of a capitalist system because if you have capital, you can easily make a lot more of it.

War also has an effect, history is littered with examples of fallen empires who choose to wage war as their people starved, and for good reason too.

Don't underestimate the effect of government decisions on an economy. Look at China, rather than waging war, they have been instituting intelligent policies designed to lure investment into their country. They are the only third world country with a growing middle class... and its because of rules like forcing foreign companies to partner with Chinese companies, currency manipulations, etc.

Infrastructure projects are important too, imagine what trillions of dollars in new infrastructure, R&D, and high tech industries would have done? How about interest free small business loans? Instead, its just pissed away on bombs.

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

What do you need a small business loan for? And how much?

[-] 3 points by WatTyler (263) 7 years ago

"50 year failed liberal democrat agenda" Too much Fox? Too much mind rot from Limbaugh?

Where have you been living on for the last 32 years? There has been steady erosion of reforms and policies that were enacted previously.

And since the corporatists own both parties, a focus on whether a candidate is a Democrat or a Republican is largely symbolic. From a practical perspective, such a focus is ludicrous.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

One would assume YOU have not seen the federal expenditure for the "social" programs and the increases each year. Maybe YOU have not heard this before but,,,,,,,,, we are $15 TRILLIONNNNNNNN in debt to pay for those programs. I'm telling you the TRUTH. I know you laughing at me,,, you think I'm lying to you,,,,, but it is TRUE,,,, we are $15 Trillion in debt. Stop laughing. It is not a joke. Look it up and you will see I'm telling you the truth. (one last thing,, If you say the debt is toward military spending,, then,,, why on earth would you libs want to raise the debt to support more military spending?)

[-] 2 points by WatTyler (263) 7 years ago

No, I’m not laughing at you, but your argument is too silly to be taken seriously. Most likely you are a troll youngster looking get a reaction, so this is a waste of time. But if not, you are a victim of disinformation. The ballooning national debt is the product of many bad choices, most of which have been made by Republicans. The Republicans have controlled the Federal government and dominated the national dialog for much of the last 32 years to the degree that many, including perhaps you, simply know no better.

But this Republican/Democrat dichotomy is false; they are the two sides of the same corporatist coin. This political struggle is essentially theater to determine which individuals get to dole out patronage and enrich themselves and their cronies. Both parties have decided to engage in financially ruinous and horrific wars while simultaneously reducing the tax rates for the richest Americans to the degree that there has been a massive redistribution of wealth to a tiny percentage of Americans to the extent that they could probably pay off the entire national debt with pocket change.

There is substantial disagreement among individuals far more knowledgeable than me concerning the true nature of the national debt and what degree of danger it may pose to current and future Americans. Not just a few view it as a concocted crisis, and whether accurate or not, it is one that could easily be addressed through increased revenues.

But of course, the right wing ideologues don’t want to fix this problem. They want to use it. The America they envisage HAS no social programs. And the deficit issue has become commonly accepted wisdom among the media talking heads, when it really is a contrived wedge issue for the Koch brothers, and others to use to attempt to dismantle the limited, imperfect (And I acknowledge.) often badly managed social programs that remain for Americans.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

Sounds like YOU would be willing to CUT the federal budget. (which the Harry Reid Senate has failed to vote on for over 1,000 days) Cut the expenses by 20%, maybe? I have a feeling YOU would rather solve the problem by raising the debt limit?

[-] 2 points by WatTyler (263) 7 years ago

I tried to help you see beyond the political theater, but you appear to want to shoehorn the issue back into the context of contending partisan political parties. Are you a very young person? Or is that your job? Do you not understand what you’re being told? If you are sincere (A very big if.) you are being worked by the main-stream media and their bosses into perceiving this issue in a way constructed for their own purposes.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

I'm 60 years old,,, 61 next week. Started and owned several businesses. "I think I do understand what Im being told." I'm being told that the Harry Reid Senate democrats have NOT submitted a federal budget for over 1,000 days. It sounds like YOU have other information. You do think we have a budget,,,,,,,,, is that what you are saying. I think you are wrong. fess up. How much is the senate budget?

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 7 years ago

Happy birthday! I hope you and your loved ones are financially secure. And I hope that Social Security and Medicare are available to you if, and when, needed.

The silliness surrounding the budget had become so egregious, that I long ago stopped trying to follow it closely. It’s very much like a magic show; all we’re shown is the misdirection. I.e., it is public posturing for political advantage.

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

Since you didnt post the Senate Democrat budget as required by law, I guess I do assume you would agree with me to cut spending until we find out what a budget looks like. If they wont submit the budget then I suspect they have something,,,,,, oh maybe,,, to hide? Harry is in control of the Senate and I see no reason not to have a yes, no, vote on it. Wait,,,, I just thought about something,,,, if Harry submits a budget,,,,, AMERICA gets to SEE what is in it.... THAT must be why we have not seen one in over 1,000 days. I cant image what my check book would look like if I had not balanced it in over 1,000 days. I JUST FOUND THE $15 trillion problem,,,!!!!!

[-] 3 points by Progression (143) 7 years ago

Vote GOP because other people do? Cattle mentality much?

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

So vote democrat just because other people do is,, jack ass mentality?

[-] 2 points by Progression (143) 7 years ago

I never said to vote one way or another because other people do. You said that.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts +
Antonin Scalia +
Clarence Thomas +
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…….ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore


Are you afraid to
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?

If you cannot see the difference between the democrats and the Rs –
.……and believe that President Gore would invade Iraq, or NOT read his PDBs –
…………..………………………………………………..you are blind

If you want to do what Davis & Lee failed to do
……………..……………………………………….…….you are crazy

[-] 2 points by lyn123 (123) 7 years ago

Democrat, Republican....is there really any party distinction as to how they play the game? SuperPacs, the Military Industrial Complex, lobbyists and impractical deregulation are enjoyed by both political parties. You see, the 99% should not be democrat or republican. They should be in the understanding that the system needs to change. It would be easy to blame one party or another. This is convenient for our government and the 1% who support it because it keeps you angry, busy and distracted while you remain in the dark about the real issues. Remember they use the media the politicians and even your religion to manipulate. It takes a well educated person who thinks outside the box to identify it but it takes 99% to change it.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

I agree with you. Most of the 1% are very rich democrats. Yet OWS hates republicans. I dont understand why they attack republicans more. Even Warren Buffett said he should pay more taxes. "HEY,,, IDIOT,,,, write out the damn check and then SHUT UP!"

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 7 years ago

More Crap from F D five

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

I agree. I bet I can NAME more rich liberal democrats off the top of my head than rich republicans. Just watching the Academy Awards the other night was an easy list and then add the rich dems in congress,,, and obama,,, I have so many rich dem names my computer is over heating.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 7 years ago

Why dont you check your history there repuke who was in office when the great depression occured Herbert Hoover, your side. And who held office when the great recession occured in 2007 ? Thats right George Bush. So I guess you could safely say that all our recessions and depression were caused by the republicans.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

Man,,, you got me. Yawn.

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 7 years ago

There seems to be an impoverishment of snappy comebacks on this thread. Perhaps you need to consult the Lutheran insulter and gain some pointers http://tyler.rasmussen.name.s80883.gridserver.com/luther/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Missed that whole bit where Bush crashed the economy?

The thing failing is the (R)epelican't agenda.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

No I didnt get the memo on Bush crashing the economy. I was WAY TOO BUSY watching the news where terrorists, trained to fly airplanes at an FAA approved flight school under Clinton, flew planes into building and bringing the economy to a stand-still. That is what I was watching on TV and reading in the papers. You got something different? (And WHO was Nancy Bull-o-Sky and Dirty Harry Reid? Did them come up with budgets? Bet you forgot that too)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

You missed the memo, because you were sleeping.

Are you sure you can't find a way to work Carter into your fantasy?

You also left off the ultra powerful Franks.

Yes indeed, you've been sleeping, likely still are.

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 7 years ago

I fear you are correct. I think the scale of our loss in November will rival Carter, Mondale and McGovern. We have overstepped the bounds, one more generation and we will have it all but too many actual Americans left for the ultimate success that will be ours.


[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 7 years ago

Bite me!

[-] 0 points by newman (-58) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by jeivers (278) 7 years ago

The Republicorp only cares about their 1% Paymasters and rely on fear mongering, lies and a manufactured Social War inflated by Faux news and 1% money to get people to Vote against their own self interest!


[-] 0 points by newman (-58) 7 years ago

In other related news!!!!! The "King" liberal David Brock, CEO, Media Matters chief paid a former domestic partner $850,000 after being threatened with damaging information involving the organization’s donors and the IRS. Not a good start of the week for the libtards

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/27/media-matters-boss-paid-former-partner-850g-blackmail-settlement/#ixzz1ncTYnK73

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

If the liberal agenda has NOT failed then why would you suggest that the poor are poorer and the rich are richer, therefore, the need for OWS? If the liberal agenda was working,,,, dont you think YOU would be HAPPY????? and not need OWS?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 7 years ago

Today in Bloomberg

Warren Buffett, who controls the biggest shareholding of the No. 1 U.S. mortgage lender, said banks were victimized by some homeowners who refinanced their loans before getting evicted.

“Large numbers of people who have ‘lost’ their house through foreclosure have actually realized a profit because they carried out refinancings earlier that gave them cash in excess of their cost,” Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said Feb. 25 in his annual letter. “In these cases, the evicted homeowner was the winner, and the victim was the lender.”

[-] 1 points by chell2 (4) from Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, NÖ 7 years ago

Sounds a little different at the source. Kinda like whining.. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/buffett-says-banks-victimized-by-evicted-homeowners-who-emerged-as-winners.html "Warren Buffett, who controls the biggest shareholding of the No. 1 U.S. mortgage lender, said banks were victimized by some homeowners who refinanced their loans before getting evicted.

“Large numbers of people who have ‘lost’ their house through foreclosure have actually realized a profit because they carried out refinancings earlier that gave them cash in excess of their cost,” Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said Feb. 25 in his annual letter. “In these cases, the evicted homeowner was the winner, and the victim was the lender.”

Foreclosures have claimed about 5 million homes since the property market began its slide in 2006. That has saddled lenders like Bank of America Corp. with defaults, vacated properties and lawsuits. Berkshire, whose stake in Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), the largest U.S. mortgage lender, is valued at more than $11 billion, invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year.

“It’s the mercenary side of Buffett,” said Jeff Matthews, a Berkshire shareholder and author of “Secrets in Plain Sight: Business & Investing Secrets of Warren Buffett.” “Rationally, it’s an interesting observation. But it ignores the huge human- cost side of the equation.”

Buffett, who publicly defended Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in 2010 against accusations it misled clients, used the letter to renew his support for banks. The industry is facing criticism from Democrats including President Barack Obama, who in his January State of the Union address said bets by lenders prompted the 2008 credit freeze and “left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag.”