Empty Seats

Dr Sarcasm's Socialism me imgflip.com/i/101oif

Good meme.

Thanks :)

Because Socialism/Marxism/Communism (all left wing politics) is like cancer. Some forms kill you quicker than others. But the end result is the same.

Here in Canada we have a national health care system that, while not perfect, covers everyone. Private heath care is also available if you want it.

Private health care is available to wealthy Canadians - it's called Going to America (Why does no one go to Canada?). The rest of you get VA healthcare.

So true!

little do they know
this may actually be a funeral

How about the entire countries of Denmark and Sweden?

They have Income tax rates of 55 and 57% respectively.

And free healthcare and education. And the income taxes have no negative impact because of the income of the people and the value of the currency.

Oh, so my Swedish relatives just chose to lie to me? Those scoundrels!

I'm sure the women in your life, family and friends both, will enjoy the r@pe culture from the "migrants" now invading Scandinavia and the rest of Socialist Europe.

Uh oh! We have an asshole bigot in the house! My family over there and many other Scandinavians are planning to welcome migrant families into their homes. They see at as a way to diversify Swedish culture.

Europe is committing suicide in the name of "diversity" and political correctness. It's just one more way the cancer of liberalism kills people. But you go ahead and call me names if it makes you feel better.

The cancer of conservatism caused slavery and the kkk. Oh, and it wanted to segregate schools and make it impossible for the poor to get healthcare. So you can't really smash progressivism. I apologize for calling you an asshole.

Democrats started the KKK, enforced segregation, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and voted against civil rights legislation that was passed with Republican majority votes in Congress in the 1860s and again in the 1960s. So, not only are you a historical ignoramus, I can "smash Progressive" policy all day long because I know history very well. Enjoy your Progressive Jonestown Kool-Aid, you fool.

Yeah but the CONSERVATIVE philosophy is what started it. The LIBERAL philosophy was trying to change society and free the slaves. You know your history but not your political science.

The Republican Party was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska act, so it was the Republicans who were against slavery and they founded a party to fight it. I know your head is swimming because you have been so thoroughly brainwashed into believing lies from your Progressive masters. The facts speak for themselves, I no long will try to convince an idiot like you to educate yourself when your bed of lies is so much more comfortable to you.

YOU DONT GET IT.
Liberal: Favors change and reluctant to accept the status quo.
Conservative: Maintains the status quo, reluctant to change.
Lincoln Republicans wanted change and opposed the status quo of black inferiority. Same with the Civil Rights activists. They were liberal.
Lincoln democrats were opposed to change and favored black inferiority. Same with the Dixiecrats in the Civil Rights era. That were conservative.
I am not a Democrat. I am a liberal. And at the moment that means voting for the Democratic Party. But in no way are the terms "liberal and conservative" synonymous to a single party.

No, I get it. You are a very confused person, which is consistent with the very definition of being a liberal, as you freely admitted to.

So I'm the smart looking guy with a diploma in his hand? I used political science and demographics to enforce my points. You just put your fingers in your ears, insulted me, and yelled that I was stupid and wrong and a cancer to society. When you can find it in yourself to maybe put in your cool historical evidence into a chat without following it up with derogatory remarks, I will be all ears. But until that day of reckoning comes, have a good day. This has been a fun discussion, and I hope it won't make us hate each other forever.

Anyone that has even a high school fundamental understanding of political science would not use terms like "Lincoln Republicans" and "Lincoln democrats". Try defining liberal vs conservative in terms of governance and freedoms lost or gained, tax rates and results... not hopes and dreams, unicorns and rainbows. If you have a diploma, it is virtually so much toilet paper. You are a poster boy for the mental disease of liberalism, fluent in gibberish, unable to follow a coherent thought process.

I'll put my law degree with a minor in poli sci up (and subsequent law career) against your "someday" degree. Word of advice, you'll have to do a LOT better than that once you emerge from the feel good cocoon of academia and enter the REAL WORLD.

You didn't answer my hate group question, silly! I'm guessing you're KKK, because your account name is "Duke", just like David Duke. Do you admire him? Btw, you must SUCK at being a lawyer, since all you do when you face a 17 year old is insult him and say he's wrong without any real evidence. I would love to see you up against a REAL lawyer.

Well, for the record, I tried the Olive Branch. But you proved the point that Republicans (Conservatives) are ignorant, discriminating, uneducated, white-assed, gay hating, science smashing, self centered ass wipes.
(PS I'm going to Tufts University to major in political science next fall, so if you still have the stones to shoot your mouth then, you know where to find me.)
(PPS Which hate group are you part of? I will provide pictures and you can tell me in the comments).

Actually liberals started slavery in a British system that was getting rid of it. The democrats started the KKK and the Jim Crow segregation laws.

The European aristocracy brought slavery to the Americas in the 1600's so neither political viewpoint can be blamed for its inception. The Democrats were the Conservatives of the Jim Crow era, as they wanted to maintain the status quo of black inferiority.

Slavery may be a bad example as status quo depends not only on time but also location. There were slaves in the North, before blacks were brought. Those were Irish. My definition and yours seem to differ on liberal/conservative. I think more on philosophy differences, based on where underlying values and source of authority lies, rather than on what is the Staus quo and thus who is promoting/demoting it. The Staus quo can change, but the principles do not.

My interpretation:
Liberal: Favors change and reluctant to accept the status quo
Conservative: Maintains the status quo, reluctant to change.

Are you unaware of all the violence in Europe caused by the recent migrants? New Year's Eve in Cologne, Germany--1200 Assaults in one city, 200+ were Sexual Assaults. Norway, Sweden, France, Germany and The Netherlands are talking about deportation in the hundreds of thousands!

We're the only people doing the violence were migrant Muslims? I didn't hear about it, I'm genuinely curious.

I wasn't there, but they were doing it in gangs. The liberal media doesn't like to spoil the "feel good" party so it doesn't get the same air time as when Trump says something stupid. If you google Cologne, Germany new year's eve I think you may be surprised

Sorry but that doesn't answer my question

Are you going to believe when a conservative says it? Find out for yourself

There are all kinds of articles in the Daily Mail newspaper that talk about it, but Progressives love to get their brainwashing from NYTimes, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MS-NBC. God forbid they try looking at overseas media to check their news sources.

I will believe it. You would gain nothing out of making up a story about 1200 people being harmed by migrants, so I have no reason to think it is a giant lie.

I never said that. . .

That may be true, but you brushed it aside like it was nothing. You ignored it. You dismissed it like it never happened and immediately changed the subject. Clearly you don't think it as bad as it it really is.

Wow. I'm sorry, but that was the most s**t stupid thing I've ever heard.
But lets work it out like adults. At what point did I say or imply that the mass molestation of women was "not as bad as it really was"? And when did I change the subject?