Are liberal stupid?

[clearview]

*sigh*


On gun control...

http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch204-gunsalesvt.html
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch705-sengunlock.html
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch904-housegun.html
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch105-hsgunliability.html

I won't waste any more time by digging up common knowledge regarding congressional votes on free trade, social programs, afirmative action, etc. and public opinions on the UN and other issues.

Does this one mean more Reps than Dems have a hard time (no pun intended) getting it up? I don't know, is hormone therapy for women already included?
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch605-viagra.html

Does this one mean the Reps, after 9/11, really do NOT want an increase in security, but Dems DO? Hop on the train everyone, after all, there hasn't been an attack since 9/11 (or color coded alerts since the '04 election either).
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch705-transitsec.html

Now this debate was good. The Reps version of malpractice "reform" wasn't to address the problem of insurance companies charging doctors too much while making record profits, the "fix" was to limit how much you or I can receive if a doctor f**** us up.
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch705-hsmalprc.html

How about this one... I guess old folks who are at risk to freeze to death, because they can't afford the high cost of something frivilous, like heat, can use their viagra to stay warm?
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch1005-heatinghelp.html

As you can see, if you are aware of only what you are told, your view can become skewed. Unless we know the text of these bills, or WHY the members voted as they did, a nice chart doesn't mean much.

 

[alphieb]

Sorry, forgot the quote I was responding to:

Though I really shouldn't care, I get tired of hearing this crap used as ammunition when it's not true.

Every other industrialized nation has National Health Insurance, it is corrupt not to. Also, I thought this war was about WMD and not oil. humm....Bush is a f@#king liar.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Every other industrialized nation has National Health Insurance, it is corrupt not to. Also, I thought this war was about WMD and not oil. humm....Bush is a f@#king liar.

Yes, let's take the ingenious western European route where taxes are through the roof, unemployment rates are almost double ours, economic growth is pitiful, there are shortages of doctors and people are on waiting lists for even the most basic of treatments for months. Why do you think those who can afford it come to our country for health care? Because their national systems suck.

It is not corrupt to avoid a giant leap toward socialism. Health care reform in this country should be aimed at lowering costs, not socializing the whole damn thing. Modernizing health records, tort reform, stimulating competition between pharmecuetical companies, allowing more generic drugs and more carrot & stick insurance policies that encourage healthier lifestyles while discouraging unhealthy ones are all steps that should be taken to lower health care costs. I would say allow more foreign drugs into the market but I hear counterfeiting is rampant in this industry... something like 10% of imported drugs are fake.

Also, I thought this war was about WMD and not oil. humm....Bush is a f@#king liar.

It was about WMDs, that's why Congress gave Bush the go ahead.

If Bush is a liar then so are the following:

Bill Clinton (D)

William Cohen (D)

Madeline Albright (D)

Al Gore (D)

Hillary Clinton (D)

John Kerry (D)

John Edwards (D)

Harry Reid (D)

Ted Kennedy (D)

Nancy Pelosi (D)

Barbara Boxer (D)

Dick Durbin (D)

and on...

and on...

and on...

(keep in mind, all of these fine government officials were making the SAME EXACT CLAIMS about WMDs that Bush was before Bush even got elected.)

Oh yes, and let's not forget all those other foreign intelligence agencies saying Iraq had WMDs, they're all liars too. Everyone's a liar!!!

 

[cnredd]

Every other industrialized nation has National Health Insurance, it is corrupt not to. Also, I thought this war was about WMD and not oil. humm....Bush is a f@#king liar.

From a previous thread....

Bush : They have WMDs
American : WMDs
Bush : The people of Iraq must be liberated
American : WMDs
Bush : Saddam has butchered his own people by the thousands
American : WMDs
Bush : He has greenlighted terrorism and in some instances financially backed it
American : WMDs
Bush : He has shown his intentions by attacking neighboring countries
American : WMDs
Bush : He has repeatedly stifled inspections and misled the global community
American : WMDs
Bush : He has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the resolutions set forth by the United nations
American : WMDs

Did you buy those horseblinders retail or wholesale?...

 

[clearview]

Every other industrialized nation has National Health Insurance, it is corrupt not to. Also, I thought this war was about WMD and not oil. humm....Bush is a f@#king liar.

I agree about both national health insurance and that Bush is a f@#king liar.

Follow the money. It all fits into a greater plan... just check out www.newamericancentury.org of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Libby, and others belong to... the goal is "American global leadership" -- now what does that remind you of?

As for health insurance, I remember Hillary getting beaten up over the task by the Reps, so it was dropped under the pressure. There are things that should be privatized, and things that shouldn't -- the free market system isn't a panacea, and in fact, the overhead costs of private companies administrating health insurance is something like 20%, compared with just 2% if it was done nationally by the government. Who do you suppose eats that 20%? It sure isn't coming out of CEO pay.

If Reps care so much for business, they should consider that by nationalizing health insurance, it removes the burden from businesses, who have had to become insurance brokers for their employees. One payer health system = Everyone has insurance, everyone stays healthy, productivity goes up, welfare costs go down, etc., etc.... I just don't see the downside.

 

[alphieb]

"Yes, let's take the ingenious western European route where taxes are through the roof, unemployment rates are almost double ours, economic growth is pitiful, there are shortages of doctors and people are on waiting lists for even the most basic of treatments for months. Why do you think those who can afford it come to our country for health care? Because their national systems suck".

Your best bet is to talk to someone in the UK about how they feel about it. The people I have talked seem to be thankful for N.H.I. What our Health Care System is doing is dragging the middle class down with our health care crisis.

As for WMD, Clinton did not get war hungry and engage in a senseless war based on an assumption. Bush is passing the buck to "faulty intelligence".

 

[alphieb]

What the hell is wrong with flaming liberals?

This is the stupidest question I have ever seen on this forum. It's like the Jews saying, "are all the catholics stupid" How shallow can you be? As a Democrat, I would not say all conservatives are stupid. Is it OK with you if someone else has their own opinion?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Follow the money. It all fits into a greater plan... just check out www.newamericancentury.org of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Libby, and others belong to... the goal is "American global leadership" -- now what does that remind you of?

A better world.

As for health insurance, I remember Hillary getting beaten up over the task by the Reps, so it was dropped under the pressure. There are things that should be privatized, and things that shouldn't -- the free market system isn't a panacea, and in fact, the overhead costs of private companies administrating health insurance is something like 20%, compared with just 2% if it was done nationally by the government. Who do you suppose eats that 20%? It sure isn't coming out of CEO pay.

Care to cite your source?

If Reps care so much for business, they should consider that by nationalizing health insurance, it removes the burden from businesses who have had to become insurance brokers for their employees.

Removes the burden? What are you, joking?? Taxes would go up considerably, no burden would be reduced for businesses.

One payer health system = Everyone has insurance, everyone stays healthy, productivity goes up, welfare costs go down, etc., etc.... I just don't see the downside.

Sounds good in theory, doesn't work quite so well in the real world. As I noted before, Western European economic growth has been pitiful, their unemployment rates average nearly double ours and taxes are absurdly high. Productivity does NOT go up. The economic impact of government run health care far outweighs whatever benefits it may provide. I also have a BIG problem paying taxes to fund a health program that cares for some guy who makes the same as me but who inhales cigarettes, fast food and booze while I live a healthy lifestyle. That is NOT equality. That is an illusional, socialistic vision of equality FORCED by the government.

 

[clearview]

Yes, let's take the ingenious western European route where taxes are through the roof, unemployment rates are almost double ours, economic growth is pitiful, there are shortages of doctors and people are on waiting lists for even the most basic of treatments for months. Why do you think those who can afford it come to our country for health care? Because their national systems suck.

The U.S. outspends other industrialized nations in healthcare costs, yet as the double digit increases for insurance premiums continues to rise, the level of care is going down. Doctors in HMO's are often paid by the number of patients they see in a day. So, even if you get in, are you really getting the doc's full attention? I've never heard of the U.S. having "waiting lists" however, I do know that depending on your plan, it can take days, weeks, or even months in the U.S. to get in to see your doctor. Medicines are prescribed by doctors, but approved by insurance companies, so treatment is dictated by an HMO desk jockey. Forget coverage for mental health -- Blue Cross/Blue Shield got sued for not covering that at all. I also know if you are poor, the treatment you get is not as good as if you are wealthy, so the basic needs of people for healthcare is only as good as what is in your wallet.

It is not corrupt to avoid a giant leap toward socialism. Health care reform in this country should be aimed at lowering costs, not socializing the whole damn thing. Modernizing health records, tort reform, stimulating competition between pharmecuetical companies, allowing more generic drugs and more carrot & stick insurance policies that encourage healthier lifestyles while discouraging unhealthy ones are all steps that should be taken to lower health care costs. I would say allow more foreign drugs into the market but I hear counterfeiting is rampant in this industry... something like 10% of imported drugs are fake.

I agree with your opinion on health care reforms for the most part -- much of it is plain common sense. Socializing medicine does not create socialism in a free society - as long as you have checks and balances. No one wants socialism. No one wants to live under a dictatorship either, but it doesn't stop George and his buddies from trying to create one. That is the real scare.

It was about WMDs, that's why Congress gave Bush the go ahead.

If Bush is a liar then so are the following:

Bill Clinton (D)
William Cohen (D)
Madeline Albright (D)
Al Gore (D)
Hillary Clinton (D)
John Kerry (D)
John Edwards (D)
Harry Reid (D)
Ted Kennedy (D)
Nancy Pelosi (D)
Barbara Boxer (D)
Dick Durbin (D)
and on...
and on...
and on...
(keep in mind, all of these fine government officials were making the SAME EXACT CLAIMS about WMDs that Bush was before Bush even got elected.)

Oh yes, and let's not forget all those other foreign intelligence agencies saying Iraq had WMDs, they're all liars too. Everyone's a liar!!!

Do you just get your intel from sly-as-a-Fox news? There are plenty of points to counter your reasoning, but I'll just state a few:

• The plans to invade Iraq were already in the works before 9/11 even happened. I believe there's a quote somewhere from Condi, as well as the Downing Street Memo that surfaced later.
• The basis for the claim of WMD's was Saddam's supposed attempt to buy yellow cake from Niger. This claim was debunked by the man, Joe Wilson, they sent to Niger to check out this intel. Even so, the claim for yellow cake was deliberately kept in Bush's war speech to the nation -- a DELIBERATE attempt to mislead the nation. On top of that, Joe Wilson's wife was publicly outed as a CIA agent. Plamegate they are calling it.
• Yes, perhaps there WERE WMD's in Iraq, but the infamous Oil For Food Program worked, Saddam was under some sort of control, and there were no WMD's found after the invasion. Yes, he was a bad guy, but we've ignored plenty of bad guys before, unless of course it affects our economy, and in fact, we've assisted our enemies in the past by supplying arms illegally... like that little Iran Contra scandal. But hey, everyone involved in that got pardoned by Bush I.
• Foreign intelligence did NOT all agree Saddam had WMD's, and it wouldn't have mattered anyway if they did. This president does not respect input from other nations unless it supports its own desires. In fact, this administration believes the president is above everything, even the law of our land, so if they wanted to go to war, they would have figured out a way to do it. In fact, to them, 9/11 was a welcome gift, because they knew it was the only way the American people were going to buy into it, and unknowingly push forward their warped plan for global American leadership.
• Can you say OIL?
• The president falsely claims Congress had the same info. he did. He's the frickin' Commander In Chief... don't you think he'd probably have access to more intel than anyone else? Like in the August 6, 2001 FBI daily briefing, for instance. Congress is not privy to all of the information the president has, and Congress was spoon-fed what the president wanted them to know.

and on...
and on...
and on...

 

[The Real McCoy]

Your best bet is to talk to someone in the UK about how they feel about it. The people I have talked seem to be thankful for N.H.I.

Who? Your left wing buddies?

What our Health Care System is doing is dragging the middle class down with our health care crisis.

No, the cause of that is the COST of health care. Implementing Universal Health Insurance will do nothing to offset the cost, it will just steal money from those who have worked hard to achieve financial success just to give it away to others.

As for WMD, Clinton did not get war hungry and engage in a senseless war based on an assumption. Bush is passing the buck to "faulty intelligence".

Doesn't change the fact that Clinton asserted countless times that Hussein has WMDs. Sorry but you can't say Bush lied without saying allll those other democrats and other countries lied too. They said the SAME things about WMDs.

 

[The Real McCoy]

The U.S. outspends other industrialized nations in healthcare costs, yet as the double digit increases for insurance premiums continues to rise, the level of care is going down. Doctors in HMO's are often paid by the number of patients they see in a day. So, even if you get in, are you really getting the doc's full attention? I've never heard of the U.S. having "waiting lists" however, I do know that depending on your plan, it can take days, weeks, or even months in the U.S. to get in to see your doctor. Medicines are prescribed by doctors, but approved by insurance companies, so treatment is dictated by an HMO desk jockey. Forget coverage for mental health -- Blue Cross/Blue Shield got sued for not covering that at all. I also know if you are poor, the treatment you get is not as good as if you are wealthy, so the basic needs of people for healthcare is only as good as what is in your wallet.

If you wish to discuss health care, let's do it in the health care forum. I don't feel like getting in a never-ending free market vs. Universal Health Care debate here.

Do you just get your intel from sly-as-a-Fox news? There are plenty of points to counter your reasoning, but I'll just state a few:

[*]The plans to invade Iraq were already in the works before 9/11 even happened. I believe there's a quote somewhere from Condi, as well as the Downing Street Memo that surfaced later.

So? Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11.

[*]The basis for the claim of WMD's was Saddam's supposed attempt to buy yellow cake from Niger. This claim was debunked by the man, Joe Wilson, they sent to Niger to check out this intel. Even so, the claim for yellow cake was deliberately kept in Bush's war speech to the nation -- a DELIBERATE attempt to mislead the nation. On top of that, Joe Wilson's wife was publicly outed as a CIA agent. Plamegate they are calling it.

This wasn't the only basis for the WMD claim.

[*]Yes, perhaps there WERE WMD's in Iraq, but the infamous Oil For Food Program worked, Saddam was under some sort of control, and there were no WMD's found after the invasion. Yes, he was a bad guy, but we've ignored plenty of bad guys before, unless of course it affects our economy, and in fact, we've assisted our enemies in the past by supplying arms illegally... like that little Iran Contra scandal. But hey, everyone involved in that got pardoned by Bush I.

Had to throw that in, didn't you? Nice touch. I would expect no less from a true liberal.

[*]Foreign intelligence did NOT all agree Saddam had WMD's

Didn't say all, I said many.

and it wouldn't have mattered anyway if they did. This president does not respect input from other nations unless it supports its own desires.

I believe Powell cited foreign intel in his Feb. 2003 UN address.

In fact, this administration believes the president is above everything, even the law of our land, so if they wanted to go to war, they would have figured out a way to do it.

Not above congress. They have to authorize war or war power.

In fact, to them, 9/11 was a welcome gift, because they knew it was the only way the American people were going to buy into it, and unknowingly push forward their warped plan for global American leadership.

9/11 was EXACTLY why serious reform in the Middle East is needed.

[*]Can you say OIL?

Yes, "oil." It's the stuff that can be refined into gasoline and then pumped into my car's fuel tank, allowing me to travel from A to B.

I really hope you don't honestly believe Bush sent our troops into Iraq with only oil on his mind. Or Halliburton for that matter. Yes, he was in the oil business in the 70s. Yes, Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Big deal. This whole oil-greedy, corporate-greedy, war-mongering, fascist, dictatorial image of Bush is a left-wing media construct and does not accurately represent reality. Sadly, far too many people have become infected with this mentality.

[*]The president falsely claims Congress had the same info. he did. He's the frickin' Commander In Chief... don't you think he'd probably have access to more intel than anyone else? Like in the August 6, 2001 FBI daily briefing, for instance. Congress is not privy to all of the information the president has, and Congress was spoon-fed what the president wanted them to know.

So Bush spoon-fed senators the idea that Iraq had WMDs while he was governor of Texas? Interesting.

and on...
and on...
and on...

Please, I beg of you, continue.. because you've completely failed to debunk anything or "counter my reasoning" as you said you would. Common, clearview, I was hoping for something that actually WOULD counter my reasoning. Gimme a challenge if your view is indeed clear and not influenced by leftist propaganda.

That GOP ad on FOX news was actually a good one, I'm not much of a FOX guy but liberals really don't have much to say about it. The fact that half of those democrats' quotes were dated from 1998-2000 totally invalidates any claims that they got their info from Bush.

 

[clearview]

A better world.

So, you're opposed to socialism, but world dominance is okay. Interesting.

Care to cite your source?

Check these out:

• http://www.pnhp.org/facts/why_the_us_needs_a_single_payer_health_system.php
• http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.w5.63v1.pdf
• http://www.allhealth.org/recent/audio_08-15-03/dallek_mclessonsforreform_pb_658.pdf

Removes the burden? What are you, joking?? Taxes would go up considerably, no burden would be reduced for businesses.

There is no reason for taxes to go up considerably if the burden is dispersed FAIRLY. Do you think this isn't possible? Well then, how about businesses taking part of the 200% CEO pay increase since 9/11 (that makes a 431:1 salary difference between executives and their employees) to cover the costs, then you wouldn't have to worry about a tax. Did you know that many large companies also pay the income taxes for their CEO's? I would think this money could be better spent. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Corporations_paying_top_executives_personal_income_1222.html

Sounds good in theory, doesn't work quite so well in the real world. As I noted before, Western European economic growth has been pitiful, their unemployment rates average nearly double ours and taxes are absurdly high. Productivity does NOT go up. The economic impact of government run health care far outweighs whatever benefits it may provide. I also have a BIG problem paying taxes to fund a health program that cares for some guy who makes the same as me but who inhales cigarettes, fast food and booze while I live a healthy lifestyle. That is NOT equality. That is an illusional, socialistic vision of equality FORCED by the government.

No other factor besides the cost of healthcare is related to the economic growth, tax rates, or unemployment rates? You are correct, other systems have not worked as they thought they would have, and we need to learn from that to create a system that will work. Besides, it sure would help Wal-Mart!
I would bet your real problem is paying for anyone other than yourself for anything. Are you of the "every person on welfare must be a" (pick all that apply):
__ deviant
__ crack whore
__ lazy
__ just dumb luck to be born into poverty
__ minority

So, do you not want to pay taxes for public schools? Let's say you are a business owner. Most people attend public schools. You employ people who attended public schools. Since you didn't adequately fund public schools, the quality of your workforce, in a word, sucks. Your business is affected. The economy is affected.
You don't want to pay for a smoker to go to a doctor for a checkup, because you're smart, have the brains not to, and they know smoking can hurt them, the dumb f***s. A doc could possibly hook them up with a program to quit, or whatever. Nope, they don't go to a doc, but get cancer. They can't pay for the hospital stays, etc., so maybe the state pays. So, instead of forking out the $20 co-pay divided by millions of people in a single pay system to pay for this one person to see a doc, we pay thousands instead.
Do you pay for car insurance? Depending on what state you live in, it doesn't just help you, it pays the other guy. We have to have it or go to jail. That's not fair, is it?
Do you want to pay taxes only on the roads you drive? Should we put up toll booths everywhere?
Hey, hypothetically, maybe I think you're an asshole, and don't want to pay anything for you. Did part of my tax money subsidize you or your family in any way? Student loans? Cleaner air? Environmental protections? Law enforcement? Libraries? Public parks? Public rest rooms?

 

[clearview]

If you wish to discuss health care, let's do it in the health care forum. I don't feel like getting in a never-ending free market vs. Universal Health Care debate here.

You are right. See you there.

So? Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11.

*sigh* Do you have a point to make? Does the fact that it was Osama Bin Ladin, not Saddam make any difference, or is it the end justifies the means?

This wasn't the only basis for the WMD claim.

Claim is right.

Had to throw that in, didn't you? Nice touch. I would expect no less from a true liberal.

Thank you.

Didn't say all, I said many.

Okay, I stand corrected.

I believe Powell cited foreign intel in his Feb. 2003 UN address.

Yes he did, and has since gone on public record stating he regretted it.

Not above congress.

Please inform Mr. Bush of that. He's "jokingly" stated he wish it were a dictatorship, and he'd like to be the dictator.

9/11 was EXACTLY why serious reform in the Middle East is needed.

And going go war was EXACTLY the kind of reform it needed?

Yes, "oil." It's the stuff that can be refined into gasoline and then pumped into my car's fuel tank, allowing me to travel from A to B.

Nice sarcasm. It sure would have been nice during the great Reagan years if they pushed for getting away from dependence on oil, then we wouldn't have this be an issue. But, they didn't, and other countries are way ahead of us. It'll be the U.S. buying technology, instead of the other way around if our govt. doesn't get off its ass.

I really hope you don't honestly believe Bush sent our troops into Iraq with only oil on his mind. Or Halliburton for that matter. Yes, he was in the oil business in the 70s. Yes, Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Big deal. This whole oil-greedy, corporate-greedy, war-mongering, fascist, dictatorial image of Bush is a left-wing media construct and does not accurately represent reality. Sadly, far too many people have become infected with this mentality.

Big deal???? How does it NOT represent reality... a fact is a fact. The only left-wing media there is is a rapidly growing progressive radio network, so don't give me that conservative drivel. The mainstream media owns Bush, and is very good at dumbing down the public.
Try reading "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. He was part of the Arkansas Project, and one of the biggest liberal haters around. You would have loved him in his early years.

So Bush spoon-fed senators the idea that Iraq had WMDs while he was governor of Texas? Interesting.

Slick. I didn't say anything about Bush's time as Governor. :spin: Since you brought it up, Bush was very busy at that time ruining the TX school system, driving the state into massive debt (deja-vu?), etc., and probably partying during every execution. Bush's stint as Gov. was about as good as his record as a business owner.

Please, I beg of you, continue.. because you've completely failed to debunk anything or "counter my reasoning" as you said you would. Common, clearview, I was hoping for something that actually WOULD counter my reasoning. Gimme a challenge if your view is indeed clear and not influenced by leftist propaganda.

I would expect you to say nothing else.

That GOP ad on FOX news was actually a good one, I'm not much of a FOX guy but liberals really don't have much to say about it. The fact that half of those democrats' quotes were dated from 1998-2000 totally invalidates any claims that they got their info from Bush.

Which half?

 

[Stu Ghatze]

It's called a typo... but that's neither here nor there.

My case for liberals being stupid:

They want stricter gun control when all this serves to do is tip the balance of gun ownership to the criminal world.

They want more welfare when welfare doesn't work. (Clinton knew this)

They oppose free trade when free trade benefits evryone. (Clinton knew this too)

They want "free health care" when no such thing exists.

They want us to be more involved with the UN when the UN is filled with corrupt, self serving countries who could give a **** about the international good.

They seem to think the 1st amendment gives them "freedom FROM religion", not "freedom OF religion" which is what it really says.

They claim to be the ones for "equality" while supporting discrimination (through Afirmative Action)

They want us to lose in Iraq and hand an oil-rich nation over to al-Qaeda on a silver platter.

They whine that we aren't doing enough to combat hunger in the world when this problem is caused by corrupt governments and much of the aid we provide goes to nefarious leaders. Then liberals complain about "nation building" and US intervention in foreign governments.

They've infected the education system and the media with their liberalism, brainwashing our nation's youth and anyone else who is so easily swayed.

They want to further unravel the fabric of the traditional American family and disintegrate communication between parents and their children. They'd rather see the government take the role of the parent.

They support the 9th Circuit Court of appeals.

They dumb down our language through "Political Correctness"

They're too busy whining and complaining instead of winning elections.

In short, they want a government that far exceeds it's constitutionally bound limits.

While I can't speak for all liberals, as everyone has their own opinions, these are the insane modern day liberal philosophies.



You're welcome. :2wave:



And yes, the neo-cons suck too.... I'm always up for some neo-con bashing.

You also forgot to mention the most obvious which is:

Liberals think that winning elections should not matter for those that win them, as liberals think that they should ALWAYS share power, or have power regardless of election outcome! ..unless of course THEY win them, ..& then everybody else can then go to hell!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stu Gahtze:
You also forgot to mention the most obvious which is:

Liberals think that winning elections should not matter for those that win them, as liberals think that they should ALWAYS share power, or have power regardless of election outcome! ..unless of course THEY win them, ..& then everybody else can then go to hell!

Whenever you say, "Liberals think..." what is that based on?