California has a higher average income than all but two of the red states, and has since the mid-'90's! Oh no!
Gas prices fell under Clinton, and rose under Bush! Every nation on earth that signed the Kyoto pact has found cheaper energy costs! Oh no!
The Bush Adiministration is the most corrupt since Reagen! DeLay, Frist, JEFF GANNON! Oh no!
The PATRIOT ACT, the most anti-freedom act ever signed, was done under the Republican Party! What has 'big beaurocracy' done under the Democratic party? Hm, lets compare FDR and the New Deal to Hoover! Oh NO!!
Every single piece of recorded data taken since the dawn of the millenium has shown that once someone jumps over the border, its' more effective to MAKE 'EM CITIZENS AND MAKE 'EM WORK... guess what does that! How about this... get those lazy Red-state border patrols to do their damn jobs, then once they fail (as they always do), make the immigrants do whats best for us: get into the system! Sorry, but it has been factually shown that immigrants do better for This Country under the "-to-work" programs of the Federal Government!
The Railroad system was bankrupted by the dawn of the HIGHWAY... and guess who paid for those? Oh yeah, the Federal Government! But, of course, who invented the car? Average, hard-working Americans! Who developed the highway? Average, hardworking Americans! Sorry, the government gives job opportunities, bigoted Redstate Rednecks seek only to take them away!
Efficient fuel is cheaper! Gay marriage and abortion make legal and moral sense! Iraq is an insult to American military heritage! The Federal system beats the States system every single time! The nation does better under Democracy than Republicanism! Remember Armstrong Williams? Jeff Gannon? Enron? Tom DeLay? The REAL heroes of the Republican party.
Sure, remove this poem! Just wanted to remind you that your goofy little idiocies won't go unanswered all the time.
Author notes
Written September 29th, 2005
A contest entry
- Still Voting Democrat? You're Stuck on Stupid! by Exit-Stage-Right.
400 points, ended October 14, 2005, 8 entries
• next poem in this contest, remove from contest
What did you think
Comments
1 - 28 of 28
-
What? I can "manipulate a statistic?" Its' called Letting The Facts Speak For Themselves, or as some call it, Truth. Of course, you can spout lines like "all Democrats are liars," and yeah, thats' really a good fact to take to heart, right? Yeah, I'll "manipulate a statistic," by which I mean, I'll TELL YOU A FACT. Try it sometime. And what am I proud of? Hm, how about having an actual system of beliefs, not basing my ideology on conervatism, which is the idea that we should be moving clocks BACKWARDS, not forwards.
And oh yeah, quoting Churchill is cute, but it will never, Ever pass for having a factual (nor in any way impassioned) argument. -
UpsideDownFrown
I am going to say this again and again, because you can manipulate statistic doesn’t necessarily make it true. You can state parts of fact, but that isn’t the whole story, you can tell a half truth, but its still is not the whole truth. You can Believe people like Al Gore and what he says about the Kyoto Treaty, Michael Moore and the lies he tells, Hillary and the ingénue rants that are more melt downs drumming up her base, Howard Dean and tangent that are so ludicrous they have no substance at all and the likes Charlie Rangel whose MO is just to spread horrible lies at any cost but they give no credence or sustenance to a political philosophy. The Democrats used to mean something to be proud of, what have you now become?
I’d like to leave you with a controversial quote that is that is attributed to Winston Churchill and a couple others that fit too.
“Conservative by the time you're 35"
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future.
Winston Churchill
Image and Visions… Dare to Dream Unless you’re a liberal, because their not capable of separating fact from fiction.
-
All the stuff John Kerry did in Vietnam? You mean the purple hearts and the Bronze Star? You mean that act of, you know, defending his country, while George Bush's family bribed his way into the Texas National Guard so he could sit back and snort coke during his "tour?" "All that stuff?" At least he SHOWED UP.
Just a reminder: while hiding in the Texas, he was cited for dancing naked on a bar stool, and dishonorably discharged after skipping three medical drug tests in a row. But of course, before that, he spent one year AWOL, in Alabama helping a GOP candidate with an election bid (which lost).
Meanwhile, John Kerry was fighting in the Vietnam War.
Anyway, as for Clinton, yeah, he got head and told Congress he didn't, but of course, he did finally confess. Which, yeah, its' wrong to tell Congress that he didn't, but it would seem to me that an initial denial is expected in that case. But at the same time, the economy skyrocketed, our education plan actually worked, and our occupation of Yugoslavia was actually successful (unlike other invasions of late that I don't need to mention). I'm willing to forgive Clinton in exchange for the highest period of economic boom America has ever had, are you?
But anyway, some current events: three separate subpoenas for Bill Frist, Tom DeLay indicted for ethics violations and voter fraud, George Bush's approval rating dipping to 39%, Tom Noe facing THIRTEEN SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS for voter fraud in Ohio and accepting 50 million dollars in bribes and imbezzlement from Ohio lobbyists and state funds. -
Remember Armstrong Williams? Jeff Gannon? Enron? Tom DeLay? The REAL heroes of the Republican party.
who made them heroes? i understand your point, but then again i disagree with you. i know you get tired of hearing "clinton!" screamed at you, but this is the best example i can think of for corruption in government under the democratic party. I dont care that he had sex with Monica- i dont understand why he'd want to to begin with- but he made a public address saying that he DID NOT SLEEP WITH HER. why lie? why didn't he say, yes i did sleep with her? who really would have cared?
what about John Kerry? i don't even need to get into all the stuff he did in Vietnam. it made the news quite enough during election season.
more examples (and evidence for them) are definitely going to come but as it's late and im tired im not going to post them. good night. -
Wow. I don't know what really has got you two so mad, but this arguement is really shocking me. I don't know that much about history to know the exact ideas, but don't you guys think that perhaps you're taking it a tad bit to far? No offence or anything, it just shocked me. I thought allpoetry was supposed to be somewhat civil, and in my opinion, a teacher and a student shouldn't be swearing when they're discussing history, of all things.
-
Heh, not much you can do to respond, huh? Its' okay, we both know you're wrong. "Preliminary planning?" Yeah, lets plan for World War II before Hitler was even Chancellor. We only knew the Treaty of Versailles would lead to future problems in retrospect post-ww2. "Preliminary planning?" Don't make me fucking laugh, you do that enough as it is.
-
Keys words in that pathetic attempt to make yourself feel as smart as a 1st grader are "Preliminary plannings". Do you not know what that means? Or is your high school really just that.....high
-
And of course, you've proven yourself to be an utter idiot.
Let us examine your own source of information:
"Preliminary planning of routes to be included began in 1924." Yeah... RIGHT BEFORE world war 2, my ass. Doesn't it bother you that you're outsmarted by a high school teacher in the five minutes he checks Allpoetry before doing his history homework? Pretty ironic, I'd say... but have fun teaching at your shitty second-rate community "college" (your website doesn't even have a faculty list, might want to get on that one, but of course, I don't know why they'd even bother making a list of people who teach at such an abominable shithole), and, maybe you'll do better next lifetime! -
I admire your excitement when your typing back to me. Kinda makes me chuckle a little. Stay in school and try, or have someone help you to get your head out of your ass. You have focused on every point in this argument except the main one. The highways were built right before the second world war. used during that time for military purposes, then was given to the people. Then we made them bigger and longer. I know you have a hard time comprehending things with an absorbant mind of a kindergardener. Ask your history teacher tomorrow about it. See if he can enlighten you. Until then, farewell.
-
Wow, kids at Sinclair College must be fucking stupid if they learn history from a fucking retard like you. What the fuck kind of college professor are you if you sit around being proven wrong all day on Allpoetry.com? Not quite the success you thought you'd be, huh? What a goddamn shame. Oh, well. Onto the laughter.
Wow, you're even giving me the evidence to prove you wrong:
-"The American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO), working in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Public Roads, laid out the US highway system" Yeah, AGRICULTURE. Real militaristic there, huh? Jeeeeezus.
And of course, their only sentence on the subject:
"highways helped the US win the Second World War, allowing great flexibility in ferrying men and materials across the nation, supplementing the nation's fixed rail system." Oh yeah, it definitely sounds like they closed down every highway in America to "supplement the rail system." NO. No. Fucking idiot.
But of course, if we use more sources than Retardation.com for our information, we get plenty of other facts:
-"President Franklin Roosevelt urged the construction of a network of highways as a way to provide jobs for people out of work." Now THAT'S "strickly [sic] military" if I ever heard it. www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0881 994.html
You're definitely not a college professor. If you're really as fucking retarded as you seem (HIGHWAYS WERE STRICTLY TO MOVE MILITARY SUPPLIES DURING WORLD WAR 2? That would probably be the most retarded notion I've ever heard), then actually, maybe it is reasonable to assume you're teaching a shitty section of history at a shitty community college in the shitty state of Ohio.
But anyway, yeah, you're a mediocre person, mentally incompetent at best, and have made pretty much the shittiest argument I have ever heard. Congrats, you've been disproven by a high school student. But of course, if a shitty community college (not even on Princeton Review's 361 best) is the best place you can "teach" (I hope you're joking), then I'm not surprised.
By the way, who in your co-faculty would like to know that you spend your spare time harassing minors and arguing notions that a six-year-old could disprove? -
www.us-highways.com/ have a gander kid. oh and as for this comment( And of course, while the roads turned fallow during World War 2, it was "only after President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that the Interstate program got under way." Yeah, we needed to move those troops in a hurry...eleven years late, right? Or did Korea provide a more disastrous war than Hitler?) remember that one? This is what I have been talking about. The federal highway act was for widening and straightening they highways that were already there and to connect them to more cities across the country, after the war was over. Now,prior to that back in the late 30's and early 40's the highways were used strickly for military reasons. Moving troops, weapons and other assorted things they needed. After the war is when the highways became for the common citizen. Learn your fucking history. I know my history. I teach it to students everyday at sinclair college.
-
What the hell are you talking about? You're just angry and using invective because you know you're wrong, but thats' okay, I'll still laugh at your idiocy.
So you're saying they didn't have to move troops anywhere after the war? How about HOME, dipshit? Jesus Christ.
Beyond that, of course, the line used was "eleven years late" as in the 1956 Act was ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE WAR. Jesus H. Christ.
And of course - "after the war the highways were turned over to the people." Now thats' just plain bullshit, which my sources have refuted at every turn, as I have shown you. How come you have never actually used evidence of your own? Oh yeah, because you're retarded and a hypocrite.
Thanks for wasting my fucking time you stupid sack of shit. At least it provided a laugh. -
congratulations! you know your years. Now you made some childish remark about moving the troops 11 years after the war. No numb nuts, during the war they were moving the troops. After the war the highways were turned over to the people for commuting. Jesus Christ your a moron. Listen to what I say, go back and read what you have already said. and put 2 and 2 together.
-
Oh my, getting a little angry there. Too bad you're too stupid to remember that it ended in 1945. Now tell me... whats 56 minus 45? Hmmmm... ELEVEN! The war was still going on. Now its your turn to get your head out of your ass, and I realize you're getting angry because you're just so damn WRONG, but please, either say something that isn't utterly retarded or get out of my way.
-
Ok numb nuts, did you not read my last post? The highways were built back in the 30's and they used them to move the troops and materials aross the country. WW2 was in 1939. so the troop movement was not 11 years late it was right on time. get your head out of your ass and learn how to read. and they are no longer purely military. they were turned over to the people after the second world war. Now re-read my last post and this post. Let it all sink in. then respond.
-
Actually, considering I was referring to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which actually WAS 11 years after world war 2, then it would really be, in fact, 11 years too late for world war 2. See what I'm getting at?
But anyway: you tell me to go find evidence, now its' your turn. I've proven my point, and you've failed to disprove it. You don't seriously believe that America's highways are purely military, right? -
During the Great Depression, the U.S. and state governments put men to work improving and extending the nation's roads and highways. The US highway system carried the bulk of intercity vehicular traffic and people migrating west to California. These highways helped the US win the Second World War, allowing great flexibility in ferrying men and materials across the nation, supplementing the nation's fixed rail system. After the war, highways swelled with cars mass produced in factories tooled up to supply wartime needs. (wasn't the great depression in the 30'S??? and the war started at the end of the 30's in 1939???? Wow right on schedule, not 11 years late.) So before you get all cocky, make sure you read all the information that is available before you make a fool of yourself. Oh, wait, too late!
www.us-highways.com/
The interstate program you are mentioning, was for the widening and straightening of the highways and making them more accessible to more people. -
Okay..."kid," I did look it up (thanks for being so utterly lazy and defeatest as to just say that in lieu of providing your own sources). Here it is from the actual Federal Transit Authority:
-"Mr. Roosevelt enthusiastically unfold his views on how many jobs could be created through construction of superhighways."
-"He explained the Government could buy broad tracts flanking the highways and obtain the benefit from the increased property valuation."
-"MacDonald made his first speech as head of BPR at that same convention. He advocated many of the same principles that became law in 1921. He defined four classes of highway use-Agriculture, Recreational, Commercial, and Military" [only ONE of FOUR!]
-"He noted the phenomenal growth of the cities and felt that improved roads would help to keep people on the farm. He advocated classification into a system comprising 5-7% of all roads." [HMMM!]
-State Highway Comissioner Grover C. Dillman described the project as:
"the place of road building as an agency of employment during the depression"
www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/origin.htm
The invention of the car ( you know, that utterly non-military device that came AFTER the tank and was at the time utterly civilian-used, with the Model T?) also necessitated the growth: "Its widespread popularity created pressure for the federal government to become more directly involved in road development." This was also in 1916, 30 years before any massive in-contintent troop movements were necessary.
-And of course, while the roads turned fallow during World War 2, it was "only after President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that the Interstate program got under way." Yeah, we needed to move those troops in a hurry...eleven years late, right? Or did Korea provide a more disastrous war than Hitler?
inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm
Yeah, you're right: the info IS out there. You should try looking at it some time.
-
Just look it up kid. All the info is out there. Its obvious now that the roads are for the people but back then that was there intended use. Just look it up before being so stuborn.
-
They can close them because they built them in the first place (and actually, you still need a contract to close a highway whoever you are in Massachusetts). That has nothing to do with the idea that they were invented just to ship arms around; thats just silly. Yeah, there are military bases between the two large urban areas it connects, but its a fairly obvious fact that their purpose is to encourage interstate commerce and transportation by facilitating it.
-
Well yeah now the highways connect to local cities but look at how the major highways run. I-75 Michigan to florida Route 66 all the way across the country same as I-70 and so on and if you follow those highways you will see a lot of bases within a 1-2 mile radius from the highway. That was there original intent. Now they are our roads to other cities and work and what not. But if the gov needed to move something they can close down the highway at any time to do so.
-
I personally think that, because of the checks & balances system, its more realistic to say that the party fervor that guides a President (that stuff that made Bush think he had a 'mandate' when he clearly didn't), the President himself isn't as responsible as the party that guides him to victory.
Also, I don't think four-lane highways connecting major urban zones instead of military bases, on which 99.99% of the traffic is civilian, was built by civilian contractors, and are built in areas strategic to People, not military bases, were designed purely for military transports. But there is that "Hidden Transit Code" on America's highways...I think thats kinda neat. Thoughts? -
1. Your California statements - when you discuss the taxes, those are irrelevant. I said highest annual income per person, and here it is:
blog.evankai.com/red_v_blue_avg_personal_income.php
And of course, Gray Davis was a shite governor, hence the recall. But under the previous Demoratic governorship, in the words of the conservative National Review, "pre-Gray, California's income was the fifth largest of any political unit in the world (after the U.S., Japan, Germany, and Britain)."
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_54/ai_92049013
And of course, your gas price argument is irrelevant because, besides the SPR, the President does not control the oil economy. For example, its not Bush's fault that he doesn't know how to pick federal oil contracts nor negotiate with foreign investors (i.e., the terrorist-supporting House of Saud and close ally of the Bush Administration, who evidently holds him by the nads when it comes to oil prices!), but it is his fault that he decided not to dip into the SPR even when we were engaging two wars in the oil-rich Middle East, which made oil price increases only inevitable. If anything, thank Clinton for knowing when to do it.
And of course, the economy was slow in the first place thanks to Bush's love of restructuring in favor of larger corporations ("trickle-down" economics, invented by Ronald Reagan), and the Kyoto pact would, if you think about it, not hinder business growth, but was intended economically to prevent the growth of a business Bubble. You know how every new industry gets under a bubble, which soon bursts? Like the dotcoms, or d-t-d in the '50s? The Kyoto pact inhibits corporate monopolies on land contracts, preventing a bubble from rising too quickly.
Thoughts? -
Im not entering this contest, because I do not vote strictly democrat or strictly republican. I vote for who I think is best. No matter what this country will be torn apart between these 2 parties. I agree with some things the democrats do and some i dissagree. Same as republicans. I hate Bush with a passion. I liked Clinton. I liked Reagan, and so on. The presidents are the problems not the politics behind them. They make the final say. If you really believe just because that he is republican, that he will agree with every last thing they do, your wrong. Beauty of free will. Oh and the highways were funded and created by the goverment. They were built originally for weapons transportation. But since they have no need for moving mass quantities of weapons anymore they turned it over to the states. Built by the american for The Man!
-
Hi Upsidedown...
No, I'm not killing your entry because it will serve a purpose. You make statements which are easily refuted with research. I am putting "your quotes" in quotation marks, [my comments] in brackets and anything else is cut and paste off the Internet. I have answered a few points, hopefully I can find time to answer more as time goes on.
"California has a higher average income than all but two of the red states, and has since the mid-'90's! Oh no!"
California -- 3rd highest gas tax
money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/gas_tax/
Taxes -- Percent of Personal Income
California ranks 15th
www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/04taxbur.html
Under Gray Davis, California went from a surplus to a record $34.8 Billion deficit - more than the deficits of all other states combined.
www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t6734.html
[Republican State Senator Tom McClintock takes some serious jabs at ex-governors Gray Davis (Dem) *and* Pete Wilson (Rep).]
"Gas prices fell under Clinton..."
Republicans have said the decision was solely a political move intended to help Vice President Al Gore, who could be hurt by public disgust over higher oil prices during the Clinton administration. They have argued the reserve should only be used in case of national emergencies and not as a means to lower oil prices.
www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=15555
"Every nation on earth that signed the Kyoto pact has found cheaper energy costs! Oh no!"
The White House said Wednesday the Bush administration would back out of the treaty given overwhelming opposition in the U.S. Congress - the Senate has rejected it 95-0.
Bush said Kyoto regulations would be overly burdensome to U.S. industry at a time when businesses struggle against a slowing economy.
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/29/164418.shtml
[A rather bi-partisan rejection... don't you think?]
-
Hope you liked it. Hope the host did too.
-
Wow. Nice ending. To me it actually speaks more than the entirity of the piece. Ack, I hope that didnt sound bad, I am really trying to pay you a compliment. What I am trying to say is that with a controversial subject like this, the reader will either agree or not. You dont really have any control over that. But you stated your possition very clearly and then tightened it up by giving the reader permission to dissapprove while you still strongly stand your ground and insist on your own self expression.
-
Bravo my friend. -Al
Adding your comment:
1 - 28 of 28
