Quote: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. 

 

No "progressive" or anyone has suggested taking land away, but they have suggested taking assets away.  You don't seem to see the correlation of what happened in the past and what is proposed today.  To "nationalize" or take away the business of oil companies was in fact, a goal of one certain "progressive" congresswoman.  It came from her own mouth.  That's outright stealing through government over reach.  Think about how if something like that really happened, how much more the governement would grow and what it would do to the industry.

 

Then look at the disaster that is ObamaCare.  Poor people or "less wealthy" don't get their "free" healthcare, rather they have to pay more into the system and get less.  This affects the "middle class" even more.

 

Regarding the "singing about the President", do some research about what kids are/were taught in North Korean schools.  Can you say propaganda?  How many songs were sung when George Bush was President?

---