Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ] |
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
RANT AND RAVE BABY -- oink oink, 19:40:07 05/27/05 Fri
>I did not mean that I necessarily staunchly support
>one party over another. It all depends on who's
>running. When I say liberal, that usually applies to
>democrats, but not always. We could say something one
>party has done to screw up, and then come out with
>something the other party has done equally bad. In
>general, I find myself agreeing with Republican stuff,
>though not always. Also, how you view a certain group
>of politicians depends on your area. In my area,
>under our democratic leadership, I have seen continual
>cuts in healthcare, charity clinics closing down, yet
>property taxes increase outrageously every year. I
>always hear how the city can no longer afford these
>things. However, the city has also spent nearly a
>billion dollar in new stadiums, and somehow managed to
>convince people it was all for the benefit of the
>taxpayers, particularly minorities. All they really
>meant was that it provided temporary contract work. We
>paid for those stadiums, but the owners got hundreds
>of millions for the naming rights of the stadium.
>
>
>As for getting on high horses and judging people, both
>parties do that, but in different ways. Republicans
>pretty much say liberal democrats are immoral, and
>liberals try to make conservatives politicians out to
>be small-minded and old-fashioned.
>
>
>If this was like, the first half of the century, I
>would be more of a democrat. I think they did a lot of
>good things then, like establishing disability,
>Medicaid, desegregation, and safer working conditions.
>Once the government began doing that, though, it
>seemed to take on a new role. People expected them to
>pass more and more laws to make their own lives
>perfect. It seemed as if people started to look on the
>government as their Mommy or something. That is mainly
>the problem I have with the democrats (as I said
>before, I am referring to the liberal ones, which seem
>to be many) is that they seem to try and reinforce
>that attitude. I think we should not think too much
>that way, for it seems most people think they should
>no longer be responsible for their own lives.
>
>
>That Supreme Court is a bunch of liberal Republicans,
>and IMO, they are crazy. I hated their ruling last
>week, protecting child pornograph in some form. I
>remember a couple of years ago, they ruled that cable
>companies did not have to block out pornographic
>channels that came in fuzzy. Even if parents had
>network TV, those channels would often come in fuzzy.
>I know they did on mine. Tell me that is not a
>coincidence, that out of all the cable channels
>available, only those would come in by accident. It
>would be no burden to order the cable companies to
>block it, because they would have to do is stop
>whatever it is they are doing to get it to come in,
>anyway.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
RANT AND RAVE IS THE HOME OF RIGHTWING ZIONIST PIGS -- rasheem, 20:22:30 02/24/06 Fri
>>I did not mean that I necessarily staunchly support
>>one party over another. It all depends on who's
>>running. When I say liberal, that usually applies to
>>democrats, but not always. We could say something one
>>party has done to screw up, and then come out with
>>something the other party has done equally bad. In
>>general, I find myself agreeing with Republican stuff,
>>though not always. Also, how you view a certain group
>>of politicians depends on your area. In my area,
>>under our democratic leadership, I have seen continual
>>cuts in healthcare, charity clinics closing down, yet
>>property taxes increase outrageously every year. I
>>always hear how the city can no longer afford these
>>things. However, the city has also spent nearly a
>>billion dollar in new stadiums, and somehow managed to
>>convince people it was all for the benefit of the
>>taxpayers, particularly minorities. All they really
>>meant was that it provided temporary contract work. We
>>paid for those stadiums, but the owners got hundreds
>>of millions for the naming rights of the stadium.
>>
>>
>>As for getting on high horses and judging people, both
>>parties do that, but in different ways. Republicans
>>pretty much say liberal democrats are immoral, and
>>liberals try to make conservatives politicians out to
>>be small-minded and old-fashioned.
>>
>>
>>If this was like, the first half of the century, I
>>would be more of a democrat. I think they did a lot of
>>good things then, like establishing disability,
>>Medicaid, desegregation, and safer working conditions.
>>Once the government began doing that, though, it
>>seemed to take on a new role. People expected them to
>>pass more and more laws to make their own lives
>>perfect. It seemed as if people started to look on the
>>government as their Mommy or something. That is mainly
>>the problem I have with the democrats (as I said
>>before, I am referring to the liberal ones, which seem
>>to be many) is that they seem to try and reinforce
>>that attitude. I think we should not think too much
>>that way, for it seems most people think they should
>>no longer be responsible for their own lives.
>>
>>
>>That Supreme Court is a bunch of liberal Republicans,
>>and IMO, they are crazy. I hated their ruling last
>>week, protecting child pornograph in some form. I
>>remember a couple of years ago, they ruled that cable
>>companies did not have to block out pornographic
>>channels that came in fuzzy. Even if parents had
>>network TV, those channels would often come in fuzzy.
>>I know they did on mine. Tell me that is not a
>>coincidence, that out of all the cable channels
>>available, only those would come in by accident. It
>>would be no burden to order the cable companies to
>>block it, because they would have to do is stop
>>whatever it is they are doing to get it to come in,
>>anyway.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To clarify... -- http://www.voy.com/74339/225.html, 17:01:49 06/23/09 Tue
>I did not mean that I necessarily staunchly support
>one party over another. It all depends on who's
>running. When I say liberal, that usually applies to
>democrats, but not always. We could say something one
>party has done to screw up, and then come out with
>something the other party has done equally bad. In
>general, I find myself agreeing with Republican stuff,
>though not always. Also, how you view a certain group
>of politicians depends on your area. In my area,
>under our democratic leadership, I have seen continual
>cuts in healthcare, charity clinics closing down, yet
>property taxes increase outrageously every year. I
>always hear how the city can no longer afford these
>things. However, the city has also spent nearly a
>billion dollar in new stadiums, and somehow managed to
>convince people it was all for the benefit of the
>taxpayers, particularly minorities. All they really
>meant was that it provided temporary contract work. We
>paid for those stadiums, but the owners got hundreds
>of millions for the naming rights of the stadium.
>
>
>As for getting on high horses and judging people, both
>parties do that, but in different ways. Republicans
>pretty much say liberal democrats are immoral, and
>liberals try to make conservatives politicians out to
>be small-minded and old-fashioned.
>
>
>If this was like, the first half of the century, I
>would be more of a democrat. I think they did a lot of
>good things then, like establishing disability,
>Medicaid, desegregation, and safer working conditions.
>Once the government began doing that, though, it
>seemed to take on a new role. People expected them to
>pass more and more laws to make their own lives
>perfect. It seemed as if people started to look on the
>government as their Mommy or something. That is mainly
>the problem I have with the democrats (as I said
>before, I am referring to the liberal ones, which seem
>to be many) is that they seem to try and reinforce
>that attitude. I think we should not think too much
>that way, for it seems most people think they should
>no longer be responsible for their own lives.
>
>
>That Supreme Court is a bunch of liberal Republicans,
>and IMO, they are crazy. I hated their ruling last
>week, protecting child pornograph in some form. I
>remember a couple of years ago, they ruled that cable
>companies did not have to block out pornographic
>channels that came in fuzzy. Even if parents had
>network TV, those channels would often come in fuzzy.
>I know they did on mine. Tell me that is not a
>coincidence, that out of all the cable channels
>available, only those would come in by accident. It
>would be no burden to order the cable companies to
>block it, because they would have to do is stop
>whatever it is they are doing to get it to come in,
>anyway.
Forum timezone: GMT-8 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |