PDA

View Full Version : Divorce Agreement



duckheads
04-20-2010, 02:55 PM
Got this email and thought I would share it since I am sure the majority on here agree!



DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sureour two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
















Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, &Jane Fondawith you.

P. S. S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

YardleyLabs
04-20-2010, 03:01 PM
Got this email and thought I would share it since I am sure the majority on here agree!


DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sureour two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.













Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, &Jane Fondawith you.

P. S. S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.






Don't let the door hit you on the way out. We'll keep everything.;-) The only legal way to take over this country is by election. Everything else is an act of treason or war.

Hew
04-20-2010, 03:27 PM
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. We'll keep everything.;-)
LOL. What are you lefties gonna fight us with...your fashion sense, witty sense of sarcasm and some decorating tips? We've got the guns. You'll keep what we let you keep. :)

YardleyLabs
04-20-2010, 03:52 PM
LOL. What are you lefties gonna fight us with...your fashion sense, witty sense of sarcasm and some decorating tips? We've got the guns. You'll keep what we let you keep. :)
When you fight to overturn an election, you are fighting against the majority of the American people, not just a bunch of "lefties". All in all, I think an election would be much easier to win than a civil war.

huntinman
04-20-2010, 03:58 PM
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. We'll keep everything.;-) The only legal way to take over this country is by election. Everything else is an act of treason or war.

Struck a nerve? Truth hurts doesn't it?

YardleyLabs
04-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Struck a nerve? Truth hurts doesn't it?
What truth? Anyone who judges democracy based on agreement or disagreement with the results of an election has no idea what democracy is about. Such people are a disgrace to our forefathers who fought for the right to have a government that was representative of the majority, not themselves.

Hew
04-20-2010, 05:29 PM
When you fight to overturn an election, you are fighting against the majority of the American people, not just a bunch of "lefties". All in all, I think an election would be much easier to win than a civil war.
I'm not advocating a civil war by any means. That said, here's some random points....

- If a President or Congress governs without regard to the Constitution a civil war wouldn't be overturning an election; it would be defending the Constitution...no matter how people voted for him/them on the promise that they would be given a free ride on the backs of the minority of voters.

- The Founding Fathers and those who fought the Revolutionary War did not have the support of the majority of Colonists. It's not necessarily always who has the most votes, but who has the most guns.

- I don't see any circumstances where there'd be a civil war fought between the left and the right (a state or states choosing to seceed is more likely), but if it came to that, don't kid yourself; the only thing stopping the left from being driven into the sea would be the goodwill of those on the right. Your peeps make good brie and good movies; not good soldiers.

dnf777
04-20-2010, 05:53 PM
- I don't see any circumstances where there'd be a civil war fought between the left and the right (a state or states choosing to seceed is more likely), but if it came to that, don't kid yourself; the only thing stopping the left from being driven into the sea would be the goodwill of those on the right. Your peeps make good brie and good movies; not good soldiers.

That's kind of a slap in the face to the men and women serving honorably and courageously in the armed forces, who happen to disagree with you politically, eh? You'd be surprised how many Obama supporters there are in uniform, especially in the enlisted ranks.

huntinman
04-20-2010, 07:38 PM
You libs are just a little too indignant as usual. The op in my mind was humor or at least tongue in cheek. Don't get you knickers so twisted up... This is nothing compared to the hatred thrown at President Bush for his 8 years and continues today... take a breath and it will be OK.

depittydawg
04-20-2010, 07:50 PM
Ok Bozo. You got a deal. We will take the West Coast and the East coast. You can have the Gulf. You get Fat-Boy Limpmouth and we'll take the Dixi Chicks. You can have Wall Street but we're taking all of main street. And lets not forget, we get the hunting dogs and you get the pit bulls... Have fun...

depittydawg
04-20-2010, 07:57 PM
For the sake of humor, I couldn't resist this response...

A Day in the Life of Joe Conservative:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.

He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

depittydawg
04-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Ever wonder how many Union Jacks served in WW2? Damn commy libruls anyway.

road kill
04-20-2010, 08:09 PM
Ok Bozo. You got a deal. We will take the West Coast and the East coast. You can have the Gulf. You get Fat-Boy Limpmouth and we'll take the Dixi Chicks. You can have Wall Street but we're taking all of main street. And lets not forget, we get the hunting dogs and you get the pit bulls... Have fun...


Quality post right there folks!!:rolleyes:

Oh, and could you clarify who "WE" is?



rk

depittydawg
04-20-2010, 08:18 PM
In this case, "we" would be those damn commie librul scums. All in jest my friend. Lets go shoot some birds. I think we can all agree on that!

huntinman
04-20-2010, 08:38 PM
In this case, "we" would be those damn commie librul scums. All in jest my friend. Lets go shoot some birds. I think we can all agree on that!

What are your other screen names... and or real name? You are so proud of the stuff you post, you don't want anyone to know who you are. Can't say I blame you.

M&K's Retrievers
04-20-2010, 08:45 PM
You'd be surprised how many Obama supporters there are in uniform, especially in the enlisted ranks.

You are correct, sir. I would be very surprised. Why would you think the enlisted ranks would be more pro obama than the balance of the service? This should be interesting.

BonMallari
04-20-2010, 08:54 PM
Ok Bozo. You got a deal. We will take the West Coast and the East coast. You can have the Gulf. You get Fat-Boy Limpmouth and we'll take the Dixi Chicks. You can have Wall Street but we're taking all of main street. And lets not forget, we get the hunting dogs and you get the pit bulls... Have fun...

the Dixie Chicks.:rolleyes:....Natalie Maines is a big mouthed overweight has been, they cant get a decent gig to save their lives because the fan base that put them to the top of the music charts wants nothing to do with them anymore...you can also have the libs on both coasts, I'll take the heartland of the country everytime.....also Wall Street owns main street ...better get yourself a better attorney because you didnt get a very good settlement

dnf777
04-20-2010, 09:09 PM
You are correct, sir. I would be very surprised. Why would you think the enlisted ranks would be more pro obama than the balance of the service? This should be interesting.

Well, without starting a whole new thread on race again, I think you can see that the racial demographics are different between the enlisted, NCO, and officer ranks. That also carries a different political persuasion as well. When most all officers are conservative republican, I promise you the enlisted ranks are not in any hurry to voice their opinions to the contrary of their superiors. Much like this list, liberals, independents, and many who are not far right, have learned its best to keep quiet and not get flamed. (well, not everybody) Liberals may be loud-mouthed in the media, but not in the military.

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/docs/demographics/FY05%20Army%20Profile.pdf

dback
04-20-2010, 09:13 PM
Ok Bozo. You got a deal. We will take the West Coast and the East coast. You can have the Gulf. You get Fat-Boy Limpmouth and we'll take the Dixi Chicks. You can have Wall Street but we're taking all of main street. And lets not forget, we get the hunting dogs and you get the pit bulls... Have fun...

Wow....13 quality posts in a single day.......you a Neurosurgeon by any chance?

road kill
04-20-2010, 09:31 PM
the Dixie Chicks.:rolleyes:....Natalie Maines is a big mouthed overweight has been, they cant get a decent gig to save their lives because the fan base that put them to the top of the music charts wants nothing to do with them anymore...you can also have the libs on both coasts, I'll take the heartland of the country everytime.....also Wall Street owns main street ...better get yourself a better attorney because you didnt get a very good settlement

If I am not mistaken, and I'm not, the Dixie Chicks have uhh....seperated??



rk

BonMallari
04-20-2010, 10:01 PM
If I am not mistaken, and I'm not, the Dixie Chicks have uhh....seperated??



rk

Sorry you must have missed the press release, they are touring this summer with another leftwinger tree hugger liberal Don Henley and the Eagles...I think I just three up in my mouth...its bad enough my favorite gal Carrie Underwood is a HSUS/PETA supporter, now I have to disown a group that I grew up with...are the Beach Boys still together ?

Eastern Shoreman
04-21-2010, 01:20 AM
A Day in the Life of Joe Conservative:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because our founders understood private property rights and the individual stake we have in our environment. They also gave us a legal system that enables us to defend those rights. Not to mention a robust economy that allows for disposable income and time to fight for such improvements. He's read about the dirtiest countries on earth, the former USSR and China, where low and behold, public land is ripe with pollution. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because our drugs are developed in a profit driven free market that rewards companies whose products work.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because of wage freezes during WWII that led to non wage benefits in the form of health care to recruit workers. Too bad his company specializes in plumbing and not delivering health care, just another unintended consequence of govt. intervention-inefficiency. Sadly he's really paying for it in hidden taxes, foreign debt etc. Maybe if all the workers had to pay for it themselves they'd take better care of themselves so Joe didn't have to subsidize the irresponsible. The Prescription Drug Plan he read about is unfunded by trillions and will just add costs to the drug makers who will eventually exit the market and there won't be any new drugs for his kids. Those smart scientists will go where they can actually...make money.

He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because he is a responsible individual who takes responsibility for his own actions. He's willing to take an acceptable level of risk. He's not gonna insist on living in a nanny state and blame the government if he eats some bad bacon, he's gonna change brands, tell his friends and watch the free market dictate in lost proftis that they'd better shape out our go out of business.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained....Joe doesn't read that anyways because he's not a crybaby liberal and this is shampoo we're talking about...he remembers when shampoo was cheaper...when there was less regulation.....

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because as free markets prosper standards of living increase...people do so well financially they want better for their kids and sometimes they pamper them too much and those kids go on to revel in academia where they get a bit overzealous and go too far, threatening to snuff out the very industry that gave them the steadily improving standards of living they now seek to reverse

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It seems to save him considerable money in parking and transportation fees but if it were only to be paid for by those who are its end users maybe it would have come in way under budget and not been so extravagant. Maybe it would be staffed by people who won't collect an obscene pension until the day they die. Maybe, if he had to pay a bit more for it, he'd save a lot more in federal income tax by not subsidizing thousands of similar projects around the country that he'll never set foot on. But this won't be realized until his kids dollar isn't worth much due to all the foreign debt we used to finance it.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. Joe wishes he didn't have to pay these union dues because he could invest that money more wisely on his own, but he's not allowed to show his contempt for the union for fear of intimidation. He fears for his friends at non-union companies with the upcoming card check legislation. Hes also heard his manager say he wishes they could unload the lazy workers that drag down the company so they could compete for certain jobs. They've thought of starting their own business because mandatory breaks seem silly to them.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Joe has always planned and saved for misfortune and knows that his tax dollars are on their way to barely paying the interest on our national debt. He knows that no matter how bad the economy is, he'll never need 99 weeks of unemployment like is now proposed. He wishes this country would live within its means and not act as if money grew on trees. He can only imagine how much more economic growth would exist without such a safety net that is full of fraud and a bloated bureaucracy to administer it. He longs for the days of old that his father speaks of when people made do and didn't look for a handout.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe shakes his head...he just read an article featuring Bill Issac, a former FDIC chairman who admits the FDIC is actually accounting fiction. He knows that the "premiums" his bank pays don't actually go into an insurance pool, they get rolled into the coffers of the Treasury and are spent on general items such as bridges to nowhere....He is sick to his stomach that for years the Soc. Security receipts have seen the same fate. Joe wishes his bank had the freedom to do as it pleases because he has checked their balance sheet and knows his bank could pay a better interest rate if it weren't for this scam that doesn't even go to its stated purpose.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided to take over private markets. Joe knows half the people on his street with Fannie Mae mortgages are not financially suited to own a home. If it weren't for Fannie, maybe he'd have some equity in his home right now. Instead he is bailing out their desire to make everyone a homeowner with his tax dollars. He knows not many of them would have qualified like him. Any private bank would have bought his loan, because his was a documented loan. He can't believe he had to sit through his master plumber class with an illegal alien who got in state tuition and dropped out never to even pay it back. Maybe he'd have paid more for his loan but his taxes might have been lower if it weren't for a federal govt who doesn't care who they loan to.

Eastern Shoreman
04-21-2010, 01:21 AM
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world but it's overkill. The thing has more airbags than seats! He's always worn his seatbelt because he chooses to. Not because the Ad Council sponsored a tv ad. Even with all the plastic his car is twice as heavy as the one he learned to drive on. He could really get some better fuel mileage if it weren't for the extra crap in this thing. He's a cautious driver and wishes he had the right to purchase a vehicle without airbags, seatbelt reminders, back up sounds, etc. because he doesn't feel that these things are worth the price especially when he doesn't drive like a madman. He just wishes he actually had a choice these days. Soon enough he might not even be allowed to smoke in his own car! Like there aren't bigger things for this country to worry about.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. He remembers his grandfather boasting that he qualified for a loan with the private bankers. He only took the reduced FHA loan because he figured he oughta get a fraction out of what his tax dollars were going to. He knows his grandfather would laugh now at how this has morphed into loaning people money that are by no means rural. He knows that the USDA rural housing program is nearly broke, and that many of the loans were made for townhomes with city water, and to him that makes no sense. What does a townhome near a city have to do with Agriculture? He is sure the government is way off base.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. Joe knows that was all good and well then...but the REA stubbornly lives on as the RUS or Rural Utilities Service. Joe read that their more recent accomplishments involved illuminating Hilton Head, S.C., Aspen and Vail Colorado and of course, Potomac, MD, a haven for D.C. elitists. He knows that once a government program is born, it indefinitely grows into a cancer that won't die.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension. His father always wanted to invest that social security contribution on his own. He knows he paid in double what his lazy neighbor did, but their benefits aren't that far off from each other. Joe tried to work for that same union company, Bethlehem steel. But those unfunded liabilities called pensions sunk the company and sent the work overseas. Joe's father always thought it was silly that a company would promise to pay people till the day they died not knowing what the future held. He thought 401ks made a lot of sense when they were touted by Reagan and he advised Joe to invest in one as they catered to the individual employee while keeping companies viable and competitive for future employees.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. Joe knows he'd be even better off if he was left alone to just take care of himself completely. This cradle to grave mentality is sissy stuff. His dollar would be worth more and he wouldn't have to scoff at the dependent society this nanny state is creating. He is glad he can't find a liberal talk show on the dial, because talk radio is still a free market and without the Fairness Doctrine those crybabies just can't seem to make money!

pat addis
04-21-2010, 07:26 AM
When you fight to overturn an election, you are fighting against the majority of the American people, not just a bunch of "lefties". All in all, I think an election would be much easier to win than a civil war.

do you mean over turning a elections like al gore did?

Hoosier
04-21-2010, 08:26 AM
Ok Bozo. You got a deal. We will take the West Coast and the East coast. You can have the Gulf. You get Fat-Boy Limpmouth and we'll take the Dixi Chicks. You can have Wall Street but we're taking all of main street. And lets not forget, we get the hunting dogs and you get the pit bulls... Have fun...

How would you come to that conclusion? Lefties as a group hate guns and love ghetto rats. As a group they are anti-hunting and most of the pits I see are pulling the hell out of a leash in a overwhelming Democrat demographic.

dnf777
04-21-2010, 08:46 AM
How would you come to that conclusion? Lefties as a group hate guns and love ghetto rats. As a group they are anti-hunting and most of the pits I see are pulling the hell out of a leash in a overwhelming Democrat demographic.

What about self-proclaimed pit-bulls with lipstick?

captainjack
04-21-2010, 09:16 AM
What truth? Anyone who judges democracy based on agreement or disagreement with the results of an election has no idea what democracy is about. Such people are a disgrace to our forefathers who fought for the right to have a government that was representative of the majority, not themselves.

I have heard that you are a very intelligent person. Is the United States a democracy? I have heard that our founding fathers did not intend it to be and, in fact, warned of the dangers of a democratic form of government.

Can you help me with my confusion?

DSO
04-21-2010, 10:32 AM
LOL. What are you lefties gonna fight us with...your fashion sense, witty sense of sarcasm and some decorating tips? We've got the guns. You'll keep what we let you keep. :)

LMFAO!!! I don't know how many of your responses have made me spit out my coffee but it's not just a couple. You Mr. Hew are one funny SOB.
I also like the time you compared someone to a "Carl Rove wet dream". Priceless!! Your a one man gang against the southpaws!

I gotta meet this guy regards...

Danny

Eastern Shoreman
04-21-2010, 01:56 PM
What truth? Anyone who judges democracy based on agreement or disagreement with the results of an election has no idea what democracy is about. Such people are a disgrace to our forefathers who fought for the right to have a government that was representative of the majority, not themselves.

Actually our forefathers instituted a constitutional republic, not a straight democracy, hence the electoral college. They knew the pitfalls of full fledged democracy.

YardleyLabs
04-21-2010, 02:19 PM
Actually our forefathers instituted a constitutional republic, not a straight democracy, hence the electoral college. They knew the pitfalls of full fledged democracy.


I have heard that you are a very intelligent person. Is the United States a democracy? I have heard that our founding fathers did not intend it to be and, in fact, warned of the dangers of a democratic form of government.

Can you help me with my confusion?
Sorry for my "absence" but I had a litter of puppies being born last night. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576


1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy#)

A representative government where representatives are elected by the people is a democracy. Our forefathers were not afraid of it. However, they were afraid of the continuing ebb and flow of public opinion and wanted to insulate government from some of those swings. In addition, the formation of the United States required agreement of independent colonies that varied in size. The smallest didn't want to be dominated by the largest. The answer to both issues was built into the structure of our bi-cameral legislative branch. Members of the House were elected to two year terms with all members subject to election at the same time. Seats were defined based on population subject to a minimum of one seat per state. By contrast, seats in the Senate were based solely on states, not the population, and Senators were elected to six year terms with only one third being elected at a time. Countering this, however, was the fact that senators were elected by a broader based population, thereby weakening the ability of small population segments to determine the election.

The votes on health care that have upset so many on the right are a direct result of the manner in which our forefathers built the legislature. Until six months before the vote, a majority of the population believed that this type of health care reform was desirable. They elected representatives who ran on platforms calling for this type of change. Six months before the vote on the bill, public opinion began to shift under the pressure of massive negative publicity, resulting in a small majority opposing passage. Despite that, legislators chose to vote for change based on the promises they made during their campaigns, enjoying the shield provided by a representative form of government. Many may lose their jobs if opposition to the measures proves to be long term rather than a passing fad.

Eastern Shoreman
04-21-2010, 02:25 PM
Your quotes are correct, but you essentially prove my point. We don't have a democracy for the very sake of not having large city centers dominate rule. Bush won without a majority, because we don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic and that's the way it should be.
Of course the Democrats had no problem contesting that election. Essentially they were contesting the very type of Republic we have. Majority rules is not the name of the game.

Eastern Shoreman
04-21-2010, 02:32 PM
"Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers."

Funny that the conservatives who recognize this also harp on individual rights where as the liberals tend to discuss sacrifice for the good of the whole...

YardleyLabs
04-21-2010, 02:58 PM
Your quotes are correct, but you essentially prove my point. We don't have a democracy for the very sake of not having large city centers dominate rule. Bush won without a majority, because we don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic and that's the way it should be.
Of course the Democrats had no problem contesting that election. Essentially they were contesting the very type of Republic we have. Majority rules is not the name of the game.


"Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers."

Funny that the conservatives who recognize this also harp on individual rights where as the liberals tend to discuss sacrifice for the good of the whole...
I am always interested in the source of "quotes". You place your definitions in quotation marks without citing a source. When I go to Google, I find the identical words repeated time after time and not one instance where a source is given.

The fact is that the dichotomy you are describing is false. Democracy encompasses both direct democracy and representative democracy. No large institution is able to work solely through direct democracy. Both logistics and competence make that impossible.

Democracy is not a contradiction of the concept of rule of law. Rather, a decision to be ruled by laws is itself an independent decisions that may be made in an aristocracy (e.g., the Magna Carta) or a democracy. The trick is to exercise the discipline of self restraint needed to live within the limits of the law once such a decisions has been made.

Those who believe that the "crimes" of the current administration justify anti-democratic actions are themselves the ones abandoning what our forefathers fought so hard to achieve: a nation of laws governed by representatives accountable to the people, with institutions forged to provide a structured process for peaceful change over time.

Hew
04-21-2010, 04:11 PM
Thanks for the nice words, Danny. Equal credit should go to the lefties...they're the ones that provide the material. It's really low-hanging fruit. ;-)

Hew
04-21-2010, 04:21 PM
That's kind of a slap in the face to the men and women serving honorably and courageously in the armed forces, who happen to disagree with you politically, eh? You'd be surprised how many Obama supporters there are in uniform, especially in the enlisted ranks.
After re-reading what I wrote I'd agree with you. I intended to use the word "soldiers" in the generic sense...i.e. anyone who picks up a gun and fights for a cause; not in the specific sense of a US Army soldier. I agree and realize that there are many liberal US Army soldiers who have fought and died for the country.

captainjack
04-22-2010, 10:33 AM
Sorry for my "absence" but I had a litter of puppies being born last night. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576


1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy#)

A representative government where representatives are elected by the people is a democracy. Our forefathers were not afraid of it. However, they were afraid of the continuing ebb and flow of public opinion and wanted to insulate government from some of those swings.

Also from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ir·rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: \-vənt\
Function: adjective
Date: 1786
: not relevant : inapplicable <that statement is irrelevant to your argument>

No question about what the definition of democracy is. Question about the intentions of our fouding fathers. Are you familiar with the Federalist Papers? The fouding fathers did warn of the dangers of a democratic form of government favoring a republican form instead (not political parties, forms of government). And it was for many reasons in addition to the ebb & flow of public opinion.

Regarding public opinion...
The democrats accused the Republicans of not listening to public opinion regarding the War on Terror. Early public opinion was overwelmingly for the war, as were the votes in congress.

Now the republicans are accusing the democrats of not listening to public opinion regarding the take over of health care by the government.

The difference is that the healthcare takeover never had overwelming public support and never had support from republicans in the congress.

I believe that all politicians were (or should have been) elected based on the fact that their core beliefs were more closely aligned with the majority of voters' beliefs. Therfore the democrats who's core beliefs lead them to think that a government run healthcare is the right thing to do should stick to their guns, just as the republicans did regarding the war. Let the voters decide their fate at the next election.

YardleyLabs
04-22-2010, 12:04 PM
Also from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ir·rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: \-vənt\
Function: adjective
Date: 1786
: not relevant : inapplicable <that statement is irrelevant to your argument>

No question about what the definition of democracy is. Question about the intentions of our fouding fathers. Are you familiar with the Federalist Papers? The fouding fathers did warn of the dangers of a democratic form of government favoring a republican form instead (not political parties, forms of government). And it was for many reasons in addition to the ebb & flow of public opinion.

Regarding public opinion...
The democrats accused the Republicans of not listening to public opinion regarding the War on Terror. Early public opinion was overwelmingly for the war, as were the votes in congress.

Now the republicans are accusing the democrats of not listening to public opinion regarding the take over of health care by the government.

The difference is that the healthcare takeover never had overwelming public support and never had support from republicans in the congress.

I believe that all politicians were (or should have been) elected based on the fact that their core beliefs were more closely aligned with the majority of voters' beliefs. Therfore the democrats who's core beliefs lead them to think that a government run healthcare is the right thing to do should stick to their guns, just as the republicans did regarding the war. Let the voters decide their fate at the next election.
Yes, I am familiar with the Federalist Papers. Are you? The actual discussion of democracy versus republican forms of government only arises in a couple of the essays, most notably in Paper#10 attributed to James Madison:

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. "[Federalist Paper #10, Continuation of The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, James Madison]

"In both Republican and Democratic forms of governments, the power of the government rests on the support of the people: in one case directly and in the other case through direct election of representatives by the people to exercise the powers of the governments on behalf of the electorate. One form of government is extensible to large entities while the other is not. There was no great focus on the dangers of pure democracy beyond that of factionalism, which was viewed more as a matter of size than governmental form. In fact, the principal cure for factionalism was seen in the supremacy of the central government since factions were assumed to be more local in nature. Thus, in Federalist Paper 23, Alexander Hamilton writes:

"Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers."

road kill
04-28-2010, 07:00 AM
Sorry you must have missed the press release, they are touring this summer with another leftwinger tree hugger liberal Don Henley and the Eagles...I think I just three up in my mouth...its bad enough my favorite gal Carrie Underwood is a HSUS/PETA supporter, now I have to disown a group that I grew up with...are the Beach Boys still together ?


This is why I thought they split.
I knew I had heard this somewhere.

http://music.aol.com/new-releases-full-cds/#/1

"Courtyard Hounds??"




rk

BonMallari
04-28-2010, 10:29 AM
This is why I thought they split.
I knew I had heard this somewhere.

http://music.aol.com/new-releases-full-cds/#/1

"Courtyard Hounds??"

rk

those two are probably trying to resurrect what is left of their careers after Natalie Maines ( the Dixie Chick who made the anti GWB remarks) submerged theirs

depittydawg
05-03-2010, 08:57 AM
Your quotes are correct, but you essentially prove my point. We don't have a democracy for the very sake of not having large city centers dominate rule. Bush won without a majority, because we don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic and that's the way it should be.
Of course the Democrats had no problem contesting that election. Essentially they were contesting the very type of Republic we have. Majority rules is not the name of the game.

Not quite true. Bush won the 2000 election because of election fraud in Florida. It has nothing to do with the minority / majority rights set forth in the constitution.

signgirl
05-03-2010, 09:49 AM
Not quite true. Bush won the 2000 election because of election fraud in Florida. It has nothing to do with the minority / majority rights set forth in the constitution.

pulleeeze...lets not go there again, especially in light of the mission of ACORN.

Time for a repost of this video which should be shown to all schoolkids and teachers everywhere.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Leddyman
05-03-2010, 09:51 AM
That's kind of a slap in the face to the men and women serving honorably and courageously in the armed forces, who happen to disagree with you politically, eh? You'd be surprised how many Obama supporters there are in uniform, especially in the enlisted ranks.

Were? In the motor pool?

Yes, I was a line animal.

You're a pogue regards,

Leddyman
05-03-2010, 09:53 AM
Ok Bozo. You got a deal. We will take the West Coast and the East coast. You can have the Gulf. You get Fat-Boy Limpmouth and we'll take the Dixi Chicks. You can have Wall Street but we're taking all of main street. And lets not forget, we get the hunting dogs and you get the pit bulls... Have fun...

You won't be allowed to hunt in your socialist utopia so we will be keeping the dogs. The pit bulls go with your boyz in the hood so you get to keep them along with their pants down below their butts.

We'll leave you enough logging chain to make leashes with.

Leddyman
05-03-2010, 09:56 AM
Sorry you must have missed the press release, they are touring this summer with another leftwinger tree hugger liberal Don Henley and the Eagles...I think I just three up in my mouth...its bad enough my favorite gal Carrie Underwood is a HSUS/PETA supporter, now I have to disown a group that I grew up with...are the Beach Boys still together ?

Fingers in ears LALALALA I can't hear you....Don Henley and the Eagles can't be liberals because it would ruin the music for me. So SHUT UP! :eek:

YardleyLabs
05-03-2010, 10:07 AM
pulleeeze...lets not go there again, especially in light of the mission of ACORN.

Time for a repost of this video which should be shown to all schoolkids and teachers everywhere.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
pulleeeze...lets not go there again. The man is an idiot.

The fact that huge numbers of predominantly black voters were disenfranchised through illegal activities by Florida's election management apparatus in 2000 is a fact demonstrated before and after the election. I am still waiting for someone to find concrete evidence of fraudulent votes cast as a result of the activities of ACORN.

Marvin S
05-03-2010, 12:19 PM
Time for a repost of this video which should be shown to all schoolkids and teachers everywhere.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Medi - I would agree as does my son who saw it on a different source. That our resident Know It All doesn't agree makes it that much more credible. It shows we all live in the same world , just that some do not want to admit what is happening if it disturbs their mindset :(.

I actually thought it encapsulated the state of our nation & world quite well :cool:.

BonMallari
05-03-2010, 02:00 PM
Fingers in ears LALALALA I can't hear you....Don Henley and the Eagles can't be liberals because it would ruin the music for me. So SHUT UP! :eek:

if you ever get the chance, read "Between Heaven and Hell" by Don Felder (former lead guitarist, original member), gives a lot of info about the turmoil about their 14 year vacation as a group

also the song "Dirty Laundry" was a direct slap at Rupert Murdoch and Fox News


Still one of my favorite all time groups ,regardless of their personal politics :D

depittydawg
05-03-2010, 02:28 PM
pulleeeze...lets not go there again, especially in light of the mission of ACORN.

Time for a repost of this video which should be shown to all schoolkids and teachers everywhere.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

The video is accurate in many respects. You could also make the argument that the United States has already lost its Republic. Given the arguments and boundaries it sets forward, one could argue that we lost the Republic with the rise of Corporate power and influence in the Post WW2 era. Surely the long list of puppets and stooges we've seen on the Political stage testifies to this. The fact that election fraud occurred in the election of 2000, and subsequent appointment of the President of the United States by the Supreme court can be seen as evidence of the Oligarchy that now has a grip on our nation.