I am talking about the fact that liberal democrats do want to provide the homeless people with free food and housing and republicans do want to make them work to earn their food and shelter. This is not an endorsement of the republican policies, this is not even a denunciation of these liberal views as they can be easily explained and defended (even though none of you have even tried, you're all too busy attacking the messenger). This is a simple statement that even though the story is fictitious the overall gist of it is correct.
No, it is not correct. Republican spending on social welfare increased under a Republican president and Congress. Democrats and Republicans both worked to reduce welfare in the 1990's. Republicans and Democrats love giving big government handouts of taxpayer money to irresponsible individuals who made bad decisions. Check out the $700 billion bill passed on Friday!
No I don't know whether these are your views, I was talking about the views of liberal democrats and the fact that they were properly described in that story. Sorry if it was not obvious from the context. I actually agreed with you that the guy who posted the story lied. What I don't understand is why (if those are not your views) you are unable to admit that the article described the views of liberal dems quite accurately.
What makes you state so unequivocally that it is a fact "that liberal democrats do want to provide the homeless people with free food and housing and republicans do want to make them work to earn their food and shelter"? Have you gone and spoken to each and every liberal democrat and each and every republican in the country and have recorded each and everyone's response on some of recordable media to prove your major premise?
I was not talking about politicians and I was not talking about Democrats and republicans, I specifically referred to the ultra-leftist fraction of the democratic party or liberal democrats. It's no secret that they (unlike Bill Clinton and moderate democrats) vehemently opposed the welfare reform.
Well, liberals who cite extreme right lack of intelligence are usually referring to people whose beliefs betray a lack of intelligence. If you actually, truly believe that the planet earth is literally 6500 years old, and the reason you believe it is that you think a book called The Bible is the received Word of God, I'm sorry - your brain works differently than mine and that difference can be characterized in terms of the differences measured by tests like the Weschler. (This is not even to say that there are not highly intelligent people who believe this - they're just extremely rare). Please don't misunderstand me, I know that there are people on both sides of the aisle like this. Just look on these boards, at the Lying Alcoholic Troll. If I said that Dems were more likely to lie through their teeth in order to win a debating point, would you disagree? I hope not.
I have never had a good word to say about Obama. Nevertheless you don't have to like Gore, Clinton, Kerry or Obama to recognize that GWB and Quayle are idiots, no amount of spin will change this simple fact. Calling them "dumb" is an insult to dumb people. I am not sure about Palin though, the jury is still out. The undeniable fact is that she is completely uninformed, clueless and ignorant. She may be able to learn of course but she has not demonstrated it yet, memorizing and reciting 50 slogans and 100 cliches out of context is hardly enough to prove your intelligence.
You may have a point. I am unaware how long ago Obama was 'hanging with' Ayers, or what the nature of their relationship was. I'll try to pick it up in the next day or two.