When the liberals began to look at unborn infants as not having any human rights.

In Obama's case, he also fought against granting basic human rights to babies who were fortunate enough to survive abortions.

In Obama's case, he also fought against granting basic human rights to babies who were fortunate enough to survive abortions.

 

True and his position on that issue has changed my mind on whom I will vote for in the KY Democratic primary in May.

when it became associated with a bigger government that takes away from those that produce.

 

Wow. When did this happen?:confused:

While I do believe that liberalism is a "bad thing," I was just stating a fact. Kentucky is a fairly conservative state and none of the leading Democratic contenders will be running as moderates. That will make it very difficult for any of them to carry Kentucky.

 

I'm not so sure about that. You could make the case that Gov. Beshear is a liberal - yet the voters of this commonwealth elected him in a landslide.

 

Look at the amount of money that is being given by Kentuckians to the various candiates. Obama and Hilary top the list.

When the liberals began to look at unborn infants as not having any human rights.

 

One could make the argument that Conservatives have began to look at women as not having the human right to choose the rights of their own body. One could make the argument that Conservatives have began to look at Homosexuals as not having human rights because they don't follow the scriptures within a religious article of faith.

One could make the argument that Conservatives have began to look at those who could benefit from extensive embryonic stem cell research as not having the human right to have medical solutions created for their problems.

One could make the argument that Conservatives have began to look at those in custody in Cuba as not having human rights because of the legal restrictions and lack of representation the prisoners are given.

One could make the argument that Conservatives have began to look at those who can't afford health insurance as not having human rights because they refuse to acknowledge the need for Universal Health Care.

I am surprised that someone who professes logic as their basis for decisionmaking, that many of your posts line up with socialism a system that doesn't work?

 

Oh man. I'd love for you to take me to task on this. I'll be awaiting your reply if you want to talk specifics.:thumb:

Wow. When did this happen?:confused:

The process began in the 1930's with FDR's well intentioned attempts to pull the nation out of the Great Depression. It evolved into today's system that has the bottom 50% of wage earners paying less than 4% of federal taxes while liberal politicians scream for higher taxes on the top 50%.

I'm not so sure about that. You could make the case that Gov. Beshear is a liberal - yet the voters of this commonwealth elected him in a landslide.

 

Look at the amount of money that is being given by Kentuckians to the various candiates. Obama and Hilary top the list.

This thread is about presidential politics. Unless Governor Beshear is a late entrant, the discussion does not involve him. Besides, as a general rule Kentucky Democrats are not as liberal as their counterparts in states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

As for political donations, the Democratic campaign has been a race between Obama and Hillary for some time now. On the Republican side, donations are still spread thinner among a more crowded field.

 

No presidential candidate as liberal as either of the leading Democratic candidates has ever carried Kentucky and that is not likely to change in November.

The process began in the 1930's with FDR's well intentioned attempts to pull the nation out of the Great Depression. It evolved into today's system that has the bottom 50% of wage earners paying less than 4% of federal taxes while liberal politicians scream for higher taxes on the top 50%.

 

Which politicans are screaming for taxes on the top half? I know that Kerry wanted to tax the top 2%. If you want to thow statistics around - give me a name and a link to prove it. I am not saying that there are not politicans out there that want to tax that much - but I can assure you - they are not in the majority.

This thread is about presidential politics. Unless Governor Beshear is a late entrant, the discussion does not involve him. Besides, as a general rule Kentucky Democrats are not as liberal as their counterparts in states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

Dodge the question, Aces. Nice. I'll bring it right back up. I think the fact that Gov. Beshear (a liberal politican) was elected convincingly shows that our state isn't the backwoods-country bumpkin-walking to church barefoot unlogical state you want to imply that it is.

 

We have lots of logical people in our state that vote on real issues - not biblical ones.

 

As for political donations, the Democratic campaign has been a race between Obama and Hillary for some time now. On the Republican side, donations are still spread thinner among a more crowded field.

 

I haven't seen the numbers in a while - but Guillani, Romney, and I am thinking McCain were the only Republicans to have any substanial donations from Kentucky. There sums together were no were near Obama and Clintons.

 

No presidential candidate as liberal as either of the leading Democratic candidates has ever carried Kentucky and that is not likely to change in November.

 

 

Would you say Bill Clinton is not as liberal as Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton?

Which politicans are screaming for taxes on the top half? I know that Kerry wanted to tax the top 2%. If you want to thow statistics around - give me a name and a link to prove it. I am not saying that there are not politicans out there that want to tax that much - but I can assure you - they are not in the majority.

The last time that I checked, the top 2% is in the top 50%.

 

The top 1% of wage earners pays nearly 10 times the amount of taxes of the bottom 50% - but that is not enough for liberal Democrats who rail against the Bush tax cuts. Democratic candidates advocate punitive taxes on successful Americans because their are far more votes to be had among those who pay little or no taxes.

 

Edwards is the most extreme case of a Democrat waging war against those who provide jobs in this country, but Obama and Hillary are also guilty of class warfare.

The last time that I checked, the top 2% is in the top 50%.

 

The top 1% of wage earners pays nearly 10 times the amount of taxes of the bottom 50% - but that is not enough for liberal Democrats who rail against the Bush tax cuts. Democratic candidates advocate punitive taxes on successful Americans because their are far more votes to be had among those who pay little or no taxes.

 

Edwards is the most extreme case of a Democrat waging war against those who provide jobs in this country, but Obama and Hillary are also guilty of class warfare.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Nice. So taxing the top 2% makes it fair to say...

 

 

liberal politicians scream for higher taxes on the top 50%.

 

That is simply astonishing. Great argument. :lol:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Nice. So taxing the top 2% makes it fair to say...

 

 

 

 

That is simply astonishing. Great argument. :lol:

What a logical response!:lol:

 

So you see no problem levying heavier taxes on a group that already pays more than its fair share. When small businesses are taxed at higher rates, they either pass the increased cost of doing business to consumers or they cut costs by laying off employees.

 

Raising taxes on those who create jobs in this economy is illogical. The politics of class envy may work to get liberals into office but it is not without a high cost to society.

Ironic that this weekend in the Dem debate, they contradicted themselves so much and Gibson did not call them on it.

 

They harped on how bad the middle class had it under Bush and how heating and gas prices had grown so much. When they got to the Gore Global warming question, they all agreed on a system on factories that would reduce carbon emissions and "the cost would be past onto the consumer."

 

Does that not mean that the heating and gas prices that they are ripping Bush for would go EVEN HIGHER under them?

Oh man. I'd love for you to take me to task on this. I'll be awaiting your reply if you want to talk specifics.:thumb:

 

Reply to what?