When Did Republicanism Go Bad?

Wow, you false premises are really adding up Bubs, care to point to where I said Dems made more money? PRETTY PLEASE. More of your comprhension issues dealing with your lack of cognitive ability, I'm going to assume

NO THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. What they did was show the more religious you were the more charitable you weer, they THEN adjusted Brooksa misleading questions Bubs. They then looked at secular giving

WAY AHEAD?? link? Didn't think so Bubs, lol



But yes, Walton's spending BILLIONS on a museum in Arkansas other rich cons doing similar things is "charity" , lol

Study after study ALSO shows the bottom 40% are more charitable. Which group do they fall into??

Interestingly, philanthropy is one of those areas where the richer you are, the more likely you are to be doing it spectacularly wrong.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/25/philanthropy-youre-doing-it-wrong/




In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/


Billionaires and even lowly millionaires, may or may not be altruistic about giving to "charity," but in either event they gain considerable benefits from their donations. Not insignificant among the benefits of giving is the generous tax deductions granted by both the federal and state governments.

http://williamftorpey.hubpages.com/hub/True-Charity-Selfless--Not-Self-serving

 

And now you are comparing the top 1%. You keep having to change the parameters. At what point was income being discussed concerning charity. Its especially funny because poorer Republicans give more money even when they make less than their liberal counterparts. Read the previous link I posted.

 

You mean the Articles of Confederation that the Founders got rid of for the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION? Wonder why? lol

 

OK. You had an opportunity to look back and actually LEARN something, but you failed. This thread as well as your jr. high English teacher.

You see, one doesn't "vote Democrat". One either votes FOR a Democrat or votes Democratic. And, since I'm sure you abuse this next one regularly, I'll spell it out, too. It's not the Democrat Party. It's the Democratic Party. Fools that take their lead from guys like Hannity or Limbaugh are easily identified when they use those terms of ignorance. But you see, those two use the terms in a derogatory sense. Intentionally. Not so with the lemmings. They merely blindly follow the lead.

I'm glad I had this opportunity to help, although I suspect it was in vain.

 

Your statement from post #122

 

frankly I think the republicans never went bad. The recession wasn't even bushes fault. The problem is that republicans never realised just how war sensitive americans really are. I believe that democrats have done an excellent job of playing off this sensitivity. As portraying republicans as so called blood thirsty warmongers. Bottom line is Americans are soft but thats the case with most westernized countries. They can't tolerate the sight of their young soldiers being killed and maimed. Its been like that since the vietnam war really.

 

When Did Republicanism Go Bad?

When did progressives go bad? The minute they arrived.

 

Yes, went out of their way. Because there is nothing leftists fear more than a black conservative. Because it destroys their entire race-baiting narrative. And so they fight twice as hard to destroy black conservatives as they do to destroy white conservatives. There is the real racism left in America in all of its ugly, hypocritical glory.

You don't think they were horrible candidates. You feel they were horrible candidates. Because you think with your feelings and your definition of a good candidate rests solely on whether or not they are telling you what you want to hear.

The media determines public perception. And the media works for your party. Notice how everything changes when put into equal context on a level playing field.

Look, listen, learn:

[video=youtube;9wJfsLafye4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJfsLafye4[/video]

Were the media predominantly conservative instead of progressive, Obama would be viewed by the public as the fool and Palin as the "florescent intellect." It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

Ok so what does that make the people who made this stuff then?







Did you ever figure out what was wrong with your statement with the clue I left you "dangling"

 

No Bubs, don't give up, YOU claimed I said Dems made more? PROOF I SAID THAT? LOL


As usual, you right wingers have nothing but false premises, distortions and lies, proving the OP's topic!

 

Seriously? NO FRKKING CONTEXT? Shocking

 

They failed English, too. Did you have the same teacher?

 

Recession wasn't even Dubya's fault? PLEASE enlighten me? Clinton's? Barney? Chris Dodd? This should be good? PLEASE?

War sennsitive? Oh you mean false flag wars fought for the 1%ers or Dubya's payback for Saddam trying to kill his daddy???l

 

Which I admitted but its common parlance used by many people. Irregardless* of what you might think I am not going to spell and grammar check everything I post on a forum.

At least I didn't create a sentence that left something dangling like you did.

We must have had the same English teacher as well then.

- - - Updated - - -

You made the claim.................I proved you wrong.

 

Yep, those silly Founders wanting to get rid of Aristocracy the right wants US to return too!

BTW, The progressive movement coincided with the US creating the worlds most prosperous middle class. Forty years of conservative "think tank" policy has cost US 10% of it!

 

lol, Sure, 6 corps control 90% of the media and they are for the Dems? lol

Tell me another one Bubs

Highest rated anchors on MSNBC were fired, Donahue for speaking out against Dubya's war of choice and Olbermann for criticizing ALL news media, not just Faux Noise??

Sure, THEY are liberal run, just like when a car comp has 60% Dem employees the CEO's listen to them right? lol

 

Sorry, pal. Idioms are permissible grammar and nothing was left dangling. The sentence is grammatically correct. But, go ahead and continue to use the always ignorant "Democrat Party" as if you really knew the difference in the first place. It's like a bad reader board one sees in front of a second-class business.

Glad you starred "irregardless".

 

ONLY if you distort it beyond ALL reason and logic Bubs. I'm shocked a right winger would do that

You did prove you jump through high hoops to distort though...

 

I know what he's trying to imply. We'll see if he comprehends that error, too. I doubt it. The rubes who use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" are generally in one of two camps. They use it derogatorily (Limbaugh) or they don't have a clue. Usually, the latter.

 

Sentences are not grammatically correct without subjects and actions. You did it yet again.

 

if the republicans want back in they need to:
1. ditch the bible no one cares, america is amoral. This religious position turns off alot of potential voters that are simply not into christianity
2. Stop talking about going to war. Americans are cowardly and can't stand the sight of seeing their young soldiers getting hurt or killed. This is why obama uses proxies to do the fighting for us. Who knows one day there will be robot war machines that can fight americas wars.

 

I know, I know. You looked dumb and are embarrassed.

 

"Sorry, pal." is not a sentence.





So are you going to continue to criticize my grammar when you can't even get it right. Once again.........you are a grammar nazi and a hypocritical one at that.

And this is not an idiom.

You were just to lazy to put in the subject of the sentence. Its really fun watching obtuse people hang themselves with their own quotes when they act like jackasses and try and criticize other people about grammar and can't even get it right themselves.

Of course "pretty much is used in common language by lots of people but it is NOT grammatically correct. So being the obtuse hypocrite you are you criticize my using "Democrat Party" which is used by many people but you don't seem to have any issue using "Pretty much". As I said........grammar nazi and hypocrite.

 

This is fun, just looking at your previous posting history. Lots of grammatical screw ups.

And that just the first few posts. You want to continue to claim superiority in grammar?

 

I was a Republican for the first thirty years of my adult life. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even ol' Tax Cutter Reagan one time. When I saw him slash tax rates to pre depression levels, continue to spend like a drunk sailor and quadruple the national debt I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. The Republican party has turned into a tool for the rich and corporations. Also....they would love to raise taxes if they knew it would go to the military industrial complex. They've never seen a war they didn't like. Did you notice how Nixon put an end to the Vietnamese war? He carpet bombed all of N. Vietnam and Cambodia and killed over a million innocents. He kept the bombings secret and didn't even have the approval of congress when he started it.