Quote:It has everything to do with it.  I agree with his idea that someone under the "progressive" banner runs on "getting money out of politics" simply to reduce his/her opponent's ability to raise money.  It's all about gaining the power to implement their particular agenda.

 

The reason I bring up North Korea is because the policies that they chose after the Korean War are exactly the same as those proposed by the "progressive" party.  Land was seized from property owners and distributed to certain people based on their loyalty to "the party" (government).  Promises were made to the people that their "education", health care and basic necessities would be provided by the government.  Look at how that's worked out for them so far.  Their economy has pretty much collapsed, people live in real poverty while the "leaders" of that country live pretty good.  The "education" that they receive is nothing more than propaganda that supports their "leadership" (see the video of public schools singing about Obama).  The parallels of "leftists policies" are eerily similar to those of the North Korean's.

 

On the other hand, the claim that "religious right wingers want a religious state as we see in the middle east" is false.  The right wing simply wants to stop the constant rejection of certain religious customs and traditions that have been a part of this country since it's founding.  As an example, displaying the Ten Commandments on government property.  Why is it so "offensive" to display something like that whether you are a believer or not?  What is so bad and "offensive" about them?  Nobody is saying that you must believe and abide by them, they are simply saying that the display harms no one.

 

The same applies to prayer in schools.  Nobody is saying that everyone has to participate, but outlawing it is the goal and violates The Constitution.

Again, not a republic but a brutal dictatorship. I am sure this is exactly what you think progressive policies are:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...t=20150513

 

Really it's not different then comparing Obama to the anti-christ or a nazi. It's the same type of over the top rhetoric.

 

No progressive has suggested taking land away. Not a single one. The idea that you can provide healthcare and education should not be a crazy idea, I'm not sure why conservatives hate it so much. This idea that people just should not have access to healthcare or education unless they have the money for it makes no sense to me as both are in the best interest for the future of the country.

 

Explain to me how limiting or removing money in politics across effects only conservatives abilities to get elected. 

 

In other news, singing about the president bad but having religious displays on government property good. Why? Because bias, plain and simple. 

---