political party in the U.S.A who beileves in looking after the welfare of the people in this country. they acheive this by raising taxes so they can fund programs that help other people.
what the fuck nigga! the democrats lost another election well if they cant help me i geuss im gonna start selling dope because a nigga like me aint down with being broke/fuck all this hood knowledge and politics im bringing the holowtips to make these republican rednecks wish for tommorow quik
by johnyhoff February 28, 2005
a political party who fights for civil rights. They also support the poor with welfare programs to make the middle class stronger.in order to create wellfare programs taxes must be raised to fund them. Now in my opion if the rich get taxed heavly and big buisnesses do to,it creates more small buisnesses and when theres more small buisnesses theres more conflict now if this happens the country will grow as a whole.many philosphers and great thinkers support the Democrat Theory.
by johnyhoff March 15, 2005
before he was president he started out in the national gaurd and then quikly moved to the oil buisnness where he did realy poorly in and often drove all his companys in the ground. Bush then decide he would try and do better in politics.when he became govenor of texas he became famous for destroying the education system he also met with taliban representives to discuss oil most likely. Other then that he didnt do much as govenor. when he became president the first thing that happened to the nation was the the biggest ression since the great depression.
then after 9/11 he invaded afghanstan with only 15,000 troops although the army was succesfull in getting the tailiban out of afghanstan it failed in acheving its primary objective and that was to capture Osma binladen. Smart and itelligent people and exspecialy the Democrats pointed out that afghanstan was a failure. Most americans though were just happy to see the U.S win another war. This would be one of the many factors bush would use to his advantage in his political campain even though the mission in afghanstan was incomplete. Any president would have done the same and could have made the same mistake but what bush did next ripped the country apart. Without permission of the U.N and the support of france,germany and every other country with a modern army except britian an intionaly spain(who eventuly pulled out).The iraq army was easly deafeted and no wmds were found even worse the 30,000 that had gone in were not enough thus the army activated it reserve and gaurd units who were ill prepaired. the occupation went from bad to worse and many americans and an uncounted Iraqis have perished. After bush had won re-election runnig on the same powerfull political machine the republicans he moved election dates up in Iraq by himself with that same stubborn attitude with succesful results.He also is currently thinking of getting rid of an economic safety net called social securty and turning it into an investmen plan where people have to go it alone in the stock market to make money when they retire. Although it sounds like a good idea its been pointed out that learnig to invest is realy hard and something based on luck another thing his britian did this in the 80,s and now have the worse pension plans in the world.
then after 9/11 he invaded afghanstan with only 15,000 troops although the army was succesfull in getting the tailiban out of afghanstan it failed in acheving its primary objective and that was to capture Osma binladen. Smart and itelligent people and exspecialy the Democrats pointed out that afghanstan was a failure. Most americans though were just happy to see the U.S win another war. This would be one of the many factors bush would use to his advantage in his political campain even though the mission in afghanstan was incomplete. Any president would have done the same and could have made the same mistake but what bush did next ripped the country apart. Without permission of the U.N and the support of france,germany and every other country with a modern army except britian an intionaly spain(who eventuly pulled out).The iraq army was easly deafeted and no wmds were found even worse the 30,000 that had gone in were not enough thus the army activated it reserve and gaurd units who were ill prepaired. the occupation went from bad to worse and many americans and an uncounted Iraqis have perished. After bush had won re-election runnig on the same powerfull political machine the republicans he moved election dates up in Iraq by himself with that same stubborn attitude with succesful results.He also is currently thinking of getting rid of an economic safety net called social securty and turning it into an investmen plan where people have to go it alone in the stock market to make money when they retire. Although it sounds like a good idea its been pointed out that learnig to invest is realy hard and something based on luck another thing his britian did this in the 80,s and now have the worse pension plans in the world.
none needed.read about the great deprsesion if want to see why its not a good idead to have people investing who shouldnt.
by johnyhoff March 05, 2005
a man who makes me sick i have a military mind and when i herd he sent 15,000 to afghanstan i new it wasent enough to complete the entire mission and i was right although he defeated an easy to kill tailiban army he was unable to kill most of its top leaders exspecially osma.then he decided to invade iraq with a mere 30,000 and take it over and occupy it. when his dumbass figured out 30,000 wasent enough he brought in many reserve units who were not as well trained. although many died in war for oil he was still happy that he was able to pull off what no one else had ever done, and that was to takeover iraq before the U.N sanctions would force the goverment to change its way without american involvement or bloodshed. To him 1,500 dead is satisfactory to him but was it necsary?there were no WMD's there just lies,and saddam had no links to terrorists.the saddam we captured was not the same saddam donald rumsfeld shook hands with in the 80,s. it was a saddam who never had a chance a saddam who ruled iraq in fear of his own people because of several assination attempts,it wasent the saddam we thought it would be, no, it was the saddam bush,colin powel,every neo-conservitive made him to be.in afghanstan bush was like hitler at denmark and in iraq he was like half the brain his father was.
read about napleons occupation in egypt or about hitler descion to stop before his army reached denmark. build your knowledge then with that knowledge of the past youl be able to see that bushes decions in the present are and will be wrong.
by johnyhoff March 04, 2005
a conservitive women who wrote a book called "How to talk to a Liberal if you must".Its a pretty easy book to read and it doesent come up with any new political ideas or things that are revalutionary instead it just bashes democrats like Hitler bashed the jews,gypsys,soviets,blacks,ect in his book mein kampf.it is not uncommon for a conservitive to make slandours remarks about a political party(Aberham lincon used to this alot untill he was chalenged to a duel by a political oppenet then he became "honest abe"). this conservitive women also seems to be consumed by her own ideas or her conservitive viewpoint she either has a an extremely large EGO or and extremly large Super Ego. i suggest she sees a therapist(shes crazy)
by johnyhoff March 04, 2005
Fox news
journalists that are bushes payroll
anybody who is trying to get a politcal veiwpoint across weather it be democrat or Republican on the news.
journalists that are bushes payroll
anybody who is trying to get a politcal veiwpoint across weather it be democrat or Republican on the news.
by johnyhoff March 05, 2005
a pearson who is reseved and is a carefull thinker who is scared to take risks and usuly makes descions based on what they think keeps them safe. though people like this may be perceived to make smart descions and show good common sense they tend to be dumber then people who may have more radical thinking.in a political sense a conservitive is someone who either has raceist values or does not want to pay taxes.Republicans have historcly been racist(even though they were formed on anti-slavery) and againts the middle class and poor so hence the term "conservitive"or "conservitive values"has been used to describe the republican party or right wing.
conservitive values are large in the south where there is alot of racism and republicans.(when the civil rights movement became a success in the 60'alot of the south started to become republican since they wanted to hold on to there racial values)
by johnyhoff March 01, 2005