REPUBLICANS UNITE & FIGHT CHANGE is available for sale!

Check frequently asked questions about Democrat mistakes


Resolved Question: Will 0baama's denial that he heard ANY anti American or racial attacks in 20 YEARS in Wright's church?

overtake Slick Willie's "Ah did not inhale", or "Ah did not have sex with that lady" remark as the biggest lie ever told by a democrat?
9 Jul 2010, 12:30 pm | click here to view more

Open Question: Everyone knows Obama is the Anti-Christ, so how do we make sure he stays in power to fulfill the prophecies?

We God fearing Christians, need not vote in 2012. Let the Democrats vote for him and win. And Jesus will be with us soon, very soon. And we will have the final victory.
30 Jul 2010, 9:45 pm | click here to view more

Open Question: Is anti-semitism the new Democrat tool?

The New York Observer online reports that Jennifer Nelson, campaign manager for Congressman Mike McMahon (D), has compiled and released a list of Jews who made contributions to the campaign of McMahon's opponent, Mike Grimm (R). Interesting that she only lists the Jews, some of whom are living out of state but many who actually live in the district. Why only the Jews? Is she saying every of Grimm's out of state contributions arrive from Jews? Is there something wrong with getting contributions from Jews? And how did she know these people were Jews? You have to hand it to the Democrats, they never cease trying to divide us. If it's not racism or classism, it's anti-semitism. They are like the Energizer rabbit of hate and discontent. Don't ask for a link, I've already said this is at the New York Observer's website. Rick, nowhere in the article does it say the majority of the contributions came from Jews. Did you even read the article? Because you obviously missed the whole point. Beardog, where did I make an excuse for not posting a link? That's so typical of you Liberals. It's not enough for someone to give you information, you have to have instant access with just the click of your mouse; you want to sit and do nothing for yourselves, and expect the world to deliver itself to your computer with no effort on your part. Yeah, Many, and a lot of wealthy Jewish bankers thought Hitler would receive rid of the communists for them, too. Aeriol7, then why did the list only include Jews? Why not "scrutinize" every of Grimm's contributors? And how in the world do you go about knowing who's Jewish and who's not? And no, I'm not Jewish. As usual, the Libs on here either couldn't be bothered to read the article (typing New York Observer.com just too exhausting, I guess), or they just didn't understand it. Dolphin, you completely miss the point. I'm amazed that none of your Jewish professors happened to mention that this is how it started in Germany. And many Jews who voted for Obama have since changed their minds when they realized his attitude toward Israel and Jews in general.
30 Jul 2010, 9:30 am | click here to view more

Open Question: Which typical party views do you think are the most hypocritical?

For instance, the democrats believe the death penalty is bad, but abortion is ok. Or there are some leftists that are anti religion and always talking about Darwin, yet believe in communism instead of capitalism. That's one that always tickled me. I don't mean to pick on the left, because the right has them too. Your favorites? How about this one from the left. Pro choice on abortion, but they want to dictate what you pick to eat.(And yes I know the whole left isn't on this "force people to be healthy" kick, but there are enough of them to piss me off)
30 Jul 2010, 9:29 pm | click here to view more

Open Question: Is it fair to say, Clinton is in bed with investment banking?

http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0724/Chelsea-Clinton-gawkers-will-receive-arrested-say-NY-cops <> So, if not yet, can we say so on August 1st? :-) Aren't Bush's critics hypocritical accusing him -- the dad of a teacher (Jenna) and an anti-AIDS volunteer (Barbara) -- of every sorts of "big bank" chicanery, while ignoring Chelsea Clinton's working for a major hedge fund? Not that *I* would say, that working for a hedge-fund is, in itself, dishonest, but Bush's critics would certainly have implied so, had they found Bush's offsprings getting "dirty wealthy" in the finance industry... Democrats enriching themselves somehow receive a pass...
30 Jul 2010, 9:15 am | click here to view more

Open Question: Now that Gov. Brewer is backing down on her anti-immigration bill, who will support her?

Conservatives believed her when she said she wouldn't budge, so how can they support her as she considers easing up in the bill? Democrats want nothing to do with her since the entire matter has been a slap in the face of the federal government and believed to be unconstitutional from the start. If she backs down like she vowed she wouldn't, will it hurt her chance for re-election as Governor, since that was the real point of the bill in the first place? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration "Tweak" is spin for "backing down" to a point that allows the federal government to supercede the state government.
30 Jul 2010, 4:52 pm | click here to view more

Open Question: Is Anne Rice leaving the Christian church proof of the Devil's existence?

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/30/anne-rice-leaves-christianity/?hpt=P1&iref=NS1 Legendary author Anne Rice has announced that she’s quitting Christianity. The “Interview with a Vampire” author, who wrote a book about her spirituality titled "Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession" in 2008, said Wednesday that she refuses to be “anti-gay,” “anti-feminist," “anti-science” and “anti-Democrat.” Rice wrote, “For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian ... It's simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.” Rice then added another post explaining her decision on Thursday: “My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me," Rice wrote. "But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been or might become.” - The Eternal Satyr Chris: It does not surprise me at every that, as a "pastor", you claim that Catholicism is not Christianity. You don't even know the history of your possess church. Catholicism is Christianity. You don't like Catholics because you're a Protestant. And you're confused.
30 Jul 2010, 3:57 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: How can I understand more about democrats?

The opinion I've arrive to over time is that democrats are the ones who want to take from those who have earned it and give to every the people who don't want to work difficult for anything and want a live a life of welfare. They arrive across as anti-American in many ways and do what feels good instead of what is right for the country. Now, you can go on a diatribe about a dem is this and a republican is this... I don't care. The point of my question is how can I gain a better understanding of democrats? Can you recommend any books? Because I figure there must be some redeeming things about them. I am not necessarily for Republicans either and think no one should be blindly 'for' one side or the other. But I feel like I only look the bad side of democrats. Any advice? wow, this is what i figured would happen. You try to find a better way of understanding something and people just like to spout off on their possess opinions. every of you people suck. I know very little about democrats, that's why I'm asking for some way of finding out more. I think I just learned a lot from asking this question though.
30 Jul 2010, 12:13 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Republicans Block Election Finance reform Bill... ? Why do the Tea Partiers endorse Republicans?

Republican senators have blocked a bill to require an unprecedented level of public disclosure of who pays for political campaign advertising. The Disclose Act had been drafted by Democrats in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that overturned federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporations to support or oppose candidates.... Here is yet another perfect example of Big Business Gov protecting their system... You guys keep saying how independent you are but the vast majority of "your" candidates are Repubs or repubs turned Indy... where are your Progressive endorsements ? Progressives seem to be the only element in the federal Government with the citizenry as their main priority.. and yet there isn't one single anti big Gov Tea Party Endorsed Progressive ? Why ?> every true progressives are "Financially responsible"... Responsible to the People of this country not the corporate empire that is using you. In the meanwhile... show me a single republican that is Financially responsible
29 Jul 2010, 6:12 am | click here to view more

Open Question: If MLK were alive today, and became president. Would the racist in the republican party approve of him?

Now change the name to Obama from MLK, and ask yourself the same question. Truth is there is a high percentage of republicans that wouldn't approve a non-white no matter what. This block of republicans are racist. They are members of the KKK, PUMA (former democrats), Neo-Nazis, Minutemen, Tea Party, Skin heads, and other white supremest and separatist groups. Most racist don't believe they are racist, they say they are simply proud to be white and prefer their possess nice. Racism still lingers around, it hasn't disappeared. It is passed down from generation to generation. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1 http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1138100985 A common position among racist is that they hate Political Correctness. What do they hate about it? it impedes them from voicing their disdain for others. This anti-PC mentality is very common among republicans as well. No surprise there. Not that every republicans are racist, but as Megan McCain (a republican I might add) would put it, they are enough of them to control the party as a base.
29 Jul 2010, 5:56 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Will Americans remember that Obama, Pelosi & Reid pledged allegiance to Mexico & declared jihad on America?

Democrats stand and cheer insults hurled by the mexican president at Americans in the US Congress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPT7qyk3lAA&playnext=1&videos=40z8gkGgomI Obama, Calderon and supporters replace the American flag with the Mexican flag while celebrating their jihadist victory over the American people: http://www.breitbart.tv/mexican-flag-flies-as-dozens-arrested-at-anti-immigration-law-protests/ Obama's Teachers Union orders students to pledge allegiance to to Mexican Flag: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYKXquc2Q7w&feature=related
29 Jul 2010, 5:09 pm | click here to view more

Open Question: Watching all the Mexican protesters in Phoenix and Los Angles - is good for how many lost Democrat seats?

How irate will voters be at the anti American Democrat party this November ? How many are sick of watching the invasion, supported by lawsuits from Obama ? We already know the home is going to be taken away this November - does anyone still think the Democrats will keep the Senate after this?
29 Jul 2010, 12:44 pm | click here to view more

Open Question: Are We Allowed to Discuss, “Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel”?

Are We Allowed to Discuss, “Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel”? By Mark Weber July 16, 2004 When a prominent American political figure speaks boldly about Jewish-Zionist power, that's news. So the remarks by South Carolina's senior Senator in May 2004 that Iraq was invaded "to secure Israel," and that "everybody" in Washington knows it, are indeed remarkable. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat who has represented his state in the US Senate since 1966, is now serving his final term in Washington. That fact may also help explain why he's now willing to defy the pro-Israel lobby and talk candidly about its power. It began with an essay, headlined "Bush's Failed Mideast Policy is Creating More Terrorism," which appeared in the Charleston daily Post and Courier, May 6, 2004. "With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?," he wrote. "The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area." Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic. But he didn't back down. Instead, he rose in the Senate on May 20 to defend and explain his essay. "I don't apologize for this column," he said. "I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism." President Bush went to war in Iraq "to secure our pal, Israel" and "everybody knows it," Hollings declared. Referring to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues openly to acknowledge this reality, he said that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." With few exceptions, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies due to "the pressures that we receive politically," he said. The pro-Israel lobby knows "how to make you tuck tail and run." But "not the Senator from South Carolina," he added, referring to himself. To emphasize the seriousness of his remarks, Hollings said: "I have thought this out as thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that here we are..." Bush's motive in going to war for Israeli interests, Hollings charged, was to receive Jewish support in election campaigns. "President Bush came to office imbued with one thought: reelection. I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We have had support of every eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was reelection... "That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any one of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The [Zionist] Project For The New American Century. Everybody knows it [is] because we want to secure our pal, Israel... "Let's realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble. Israel is in trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to state what I believe to be the fact. In fact, I believe it very strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that we receive politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." Hollings cited the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most important pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, in determining US policy in the Middle East. "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the needy President a chance. "I can tell you no President takes office -- I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat — that every of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my possess idea and my possess policy..." The Iraq war has been "a bad mistake," said Hollings. "Getting rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and over 3,500 maimed for life..." This war is "a mistake like Vietnam," he added. "We got misled with the [1964] Gulf of Tonkin [incident]. We got misled here, and we are in that quagmire... "The entire thing is a mess. Don't give me 'support the troops, support the troops.' I have been with troops, about three years in combat "The entire thing is a mess. Don't give me 'support the troops, support the troops.' I have been with troops, about three years in combat, so don't tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops." ________________________________________ Source: Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record - Senate, May 20, 2004, pages S5921-S5925. look also: Iraq: A War For Israel. http://www.ihr.org/news/040716_hollings.shtml over links are not for promotion but authentication
29 Jul 2010, 10:07 am | click here to view more

Open Question: Do you believe in a separation of church and state?

Religion is man-made. Religion is anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-women(most of them)--Eve from Adam, no female priests in some religions, obviously it was a man who wrote the bible. There are many religions, bottom line I do believe in God, I believe regardless of religion, we are every praying to the same person regardless of our rules. There was a god 1000 years ago when religion much like today was man-made and it was an explanation for our surroundings...i.e. polytheism, we didn't know anything about the sun so there was a sun god, water god, etc. Man-made explanation for surroundings shouldn't have anything to do with politics since there is not one religion in this country but many. The social issues that divide us, shouldn't even exist bc they shouldn't arrive into politics at every. Then republicans and democrats would just be divided on fiscal issues. Then once it was only on fiscal issues, the 5% wealthy of America and corporate power would not dominate the masses or republican party agenda.
28 Jul 2010, 7:03 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Do you know who's who in the unemployment bill?

The Republicans have no problem with extension They do have problem with the 34billion democrat piggyback Rep. filibuster, dems finger point and blame Dems agree by removing 25 bucks a week and cobra rights from the UNEMPLOYED!!! Looks like icy pimpin' to me So who are the anti-unemployed?
28 Jul 2010, 3:00 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: who's who in the unemployment bill?

The Republicans have no problem with extension They do have problem with the 34billion democrat piggyback Rep. filibuster, dems finger point and blame Dems agree by removing 25 bucks a week and cobra rights from the UNEMPLOYED!!! Looks like icy pimpin' to me So who are the anti-unemployed? good answer Lonny, I agree
28 Jul 2010, 2:49 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Why do so many Democrats support the Bush/Obama War?

Aren't Democrats supposed to vehemently anti-war on every wars?
27 Jul 2010, 8:13 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Is there a white, male, anti-war Democrat to challenge the First Black President (FBP) in 2012?

Someone that moderate Republicans will support in a general election. iris : Rember LBJ being challenged? How about Kennedy v. Carter? Cookie M: Because it is a factor in nominating a D James : Gender right, but she is in the Cabinet and would have to resign
27 Jul 2010, 4:43 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Is President Obama and his 34% approval rating a DRAG on dems looking for re-election?

Has anyone seen ANY of the candidates ASKING for Obama to arrive campaign for them? Also, who wants to bet that due to the MSM, Obama's approval numbers magically go up by at least 5 to 10 points before this November? excerpt... A new independent poll in Missouri paints a grim picture for the president. Obama's job approval rating stood at just 34 percent with the overall electorate; among independents the numbers were even worse with just 27 percent approving of the job Obama is doing and 63 percent disapproving. "Midterm elections are usually a referendum on the President," said one Democratic pollster granted anonymity to talk candidly. "But I think there are a host of other numbers that are more worrisome -- right direction, lack of economic optimism, the Democrats in Congress having needy numbers and the sharp rise in anti-incumbency." Elections are far more complex than many people -- including the media (damn media!) -- typically assume and, as a result, it's impossible to quantitatively measure exactly what the Obama effect will be this fall. But, numbers like the ones in Missouri have to be concerning for Democratic candidates who have to wish Obama's approval ratings improve between now and Nov. 2. Running with a light breeze in your face is one thing; running with a gale force wind blowing against you is quite another. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-home/-mo-blunt-48-carnahan.html AND I know that the poll was about Missouri... the article quotes polls from several states, and then the national one...you should read it. IRD00A: Ahem, COngressional approval rating is now at 11%, not anywhere close 22%, cease lying for the liberals.
27 Jul 2010, 2:35 pm | click here to view more

Open Question: Reasons for why Alexander Hamilton is not a founding father?

please leave me detailed answers heres what i got Body 1 •Wasn’t for Constitution •Wanted aristocracy •Anti democrat •Not true patriot Body 2 •Valued $ too much •Licentious •Grew to be power hungry feedback please and one more body paragraph to go! just outline ok the essay was explain why/why not Hamilton is a founding dad...i just chose it because everyone else was saying he was, but maybe they were right don't go hating on my teachers
27 Jul 2010, 2:08 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Is it patriotic for Hollywood to make our military look bad?

And why are democrats so cozy with anti american film makers in Hollywierd
26 Jul 2010, 7:55 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: So, really this time. Has any GOP president blocked desegregation or anti-lynching laws?

We had a Democrat presidents who failed to cease Democrat fillibusters that defeated anti-lynching laws. But did any Republican president block legislation to end lynching or segregation? So where is the proof of this theory that the parties "switched sides" on civil rights? Seems like the Democrats are the ones who switched. tummy, so the Democrats actively opposed and blocked civil rights legislation, but you disapprove more of the GOP because you say they did "nothing." Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, with the intention of waging war against the Arkansas National Guard if need be, to force school desegregation on the Democrat governor. Your logic sounds a bit selective.
26 Jul 2010, 6:56 am | click here to view more

Open Question: Why do Democrats suddenly become anti-deficit when tax cuts are mentioned but are still for spending increases?

I adore hypocrisy.
26 Jul 2010, 4:02 pm | click here to view more

Voting Question: Democrats & "Liberals" : Obama good to ban reporting civilian deaths in our occupations? Anti-war huh?

Reflections of lincoln...close down opposition views, claim it could hurt the government. Free speech exists? Obama considers it 'enlightenment' to be able to stomach politicians overstepping power enough to ignore american rights? Is this 'change' really any different from what bush would have done? More war, more spending, more domestic spying, more debt, more bankers and gamblers in the money game in the white home and FED? Condemn the truth, ever? So now its the "right thing to do" to ignore civilian deaths, deaths that directly and naturally create revenge seekers ('terrorists'). Both parties seem to benefit greatly from that convenient creation, especially considering they are in multi-million dollar homes and nowhere close the people they are ordering war against or the affordable soldiers they send on suicide missions to maintain a government process that collects revenue with lawmaking powers. Thanks for reading the question-rant. Now for your views on these areas?
26 Jul 2010, 12:11 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Would FDR be a Republican today?

FDR refused to break a Democrat fillibuster of the anti-lynching law in 1938. Democrats explain this away by saying Democrat and Republican switched places. Does anybody really think FDR would be a Republican today? TIGER LADY, and JFK fought vigorously for civil rights, sending troops to Alabama to force Gov. Wallace to desegregate schools. When you say he would be a Republican today, that means today's Republicans would also be the pal of blacks. Thanks for proving my point. So it appears unanimous. FDR was the foe of blacks, and he would still be a Democrat today. JFK was a pal of blacks, and some say he would be a Republican today. So it sounds like Republicans are still the pal of blacks, while Democrats are still their enemies who have only shifted tactics to using them as a vending machine for votes. There was no massive switch-over of the political parties. Sorry, libbies, another one of your lies has been exposed.
26 Jul 2010, 11:41 am | click here to view more

Voting Question: Why did Obama allow Jan Brewer to become governor of Arizona?

Obama is wasting so much time & money fighting this immigration law........ but HE HIMSELF caused this law to pass in the 1st place! Obama appointed Arizona's Democrat governor to his cabinet, well-aware that Arizona's new governor was going to be Republican Jan Brewer. Obama's actions caused this anti-immigration law to pass. Why did he allow the Republicans to gain a governor's seat? Was that a weak attempt to look "bipartisan" ??? Oh yeah, the GOP really thinks Obama is bipartisan.
25 Jul 2010, 8:14 am | click here to view more

Voting Question: Why is everyone ignoring the fact that Obama caused this AZ immigration mess to happen?

This anti-immigration law that Obama hates so much................... would not have existed........if it weren't for OBAMA'S actions. Obama's appointment of Janet Napilitano to his cabinet caused the governorship of Arizona to go from Democrat to Republican without so much as a single election. Obama made Jan Brewer governor of Arizona. Didn't he think to vet her? He just let Jan Brewer walk into the governor's seat well-aware that she's a Republican? Did he honestly expect a Republican to govern in a reasonable manner? What was that, a weak attempt to look "bipartisan" ??? Oh yeah, the GOP really thinks Obama is bipartisan. Now we have Obama wasting millions of tax payers money fighting this lawsuit.
25 Jul 2010, 7:18 am | click here to view more

Voting Question: Am I Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative?

Am I Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative? Am I Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative? My views are: Abortion: Usually support it but i don't agree with the government paying for it Gun Control: Usually Pro Gun Control...Anti Guns if the person has a criminal record Gay marriage: I am against it Crime and Punishment: Supports Death Penalty and supports putting criminals in jail (of course) Immigration: I believe we should strengthen immigration laws and shouldn't grant amnesty to illegal immigrants...I support Arizona Environment: supports helping it but doesn't go to the extreme Universal Health Care: I think most people should be covered with Health insurance except for illegal immigrants War: I support military and I think if someone attacks our country we should attack them back Government assistance: I don't support Welfare or Affirmative Action Taxes: I think taxes should be reduced for everyone but i don't think the Government should pay taxes for people who live in community projects Morals and Values: I am a pretty Old-Fashioned person ( you can say i think like the old school) and i'm Catholic Jobs and Economy: I support Labor Unions more so than the corporate world, I am supportive of Working-Class and tiny bussinesses, I also don't support Gay Rights, Minorities or Feminism Please i just want to know if i'm Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative Also you guys can say if you think i'm Democrat, Republican or Independent Determine if i'm Liberal Democrat, Liberal Republican, Moderate Democrat, Moderate Republican, Conservative Democrat or Conservative Republican
25 Jul 2010, 5:57 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: If Wilson and FDR were progressive, then what party fillibustered the anti-lynching bill in 1922?

In 1922, Senate Democrats fillibustered and defeated a bill to outlaw lynching. Were these Senate Democrats conservatives or liberals? Well, the Democrat presidents before and after 1922 were Wilson and FDR. Both of them were liberal progressives. So were the Senate Democrats also liberals when they fillibustered and defeated the anti-lynching bill in 1922? The same thing happened in 1938: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/race/022238race-ra.html Filibuster Ended as Senate Shelves Anti-Lynch Bill "Senator McNary, the Republican floor leader, retorted, contending that President Roosevelt could have obtained passage of the bill in three days; that there had been no attempt in ``good faith'' to break the filibuster. " Why didn't FDR use his influence to end the fillibuster and protect blacks from lynching? relevant, where is your proof that every conservatives are racist? .....crickets chirping. Kman, you lie. Name the names of every the Dixiecrats, and tell me which ones joined the Republican Party. I will give you Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin. The following DID NOT join the GOP: Orval Fabus Benjamin Travis Laney John Stennis James Eastland Allen Ellender Russell Long John Sparkman John McClellan Richard Russell Herman Talmadge George Wallace Lester Maddox John Rarick Robert Byrd Al Gore, Sr. Bull Connor Go ahead, look them up.
24 Jul 2010, 8:54 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Do the idiots in the Media Calling FOX's Rodger Ailes Racist realize he marched with MLK While Democrats hated?

That's right. Rodger Ailes, CEO of Fox News division (or something like that) Marched with MLK along with many other Republicans, while the Democrat party hated MLK and referred to him using every kinds of racist trash? Calling those like Ailes who marched with MLK race traitors? They would tell you rolls switched, but that is a lie. After Kennedy turned on the Globalist bankers who back the Progressives in the US and fund anti Capitalist propaganda, he made alliances with MLK & then MLK joined the democrat party, but in 1957 the Kennedy's were not for a civil rights amendment. The Globalists & Progressives understood that an empowered black population could turn the political tide so they needed to recapture them so they could use them as a voting block, but the Progressives and Globalists have never seen Black people as equal, but as an inferior race, and they still do. After JFK was murdered, 10 days after talking about powerful people in this world out to use the office of president in the US to destroy our standard of living, the Globs & Progs went after the Black Population. MLK would not play ball, much like JFK wouldn't play ball, so he was Murdered & Traitors like Jessie Jackson put in place and made millionaires to help turn the black population into a voting block which would be dependent on Democrats bribery. They used government hand outs, the media & entertainment industry to try to turn Republicans into the bad guys because they were against (still) unequal treatment of people or government picking winners & losers. Hate & fear was preached, as they invented the Communist Black Liberation Theology because they had to infiltrate and exploit the churches which were against them. Drugs were brought in, the Glob & Prog owned media & entertainment industry made working & being responsible uncool & stigmatized, those who did that were selling out, Uncle Tom's ... while being an irresponsible thug, drunk, drugie, criminal were chilly & hip. From the time MLK died the black populations murder & single motherhood rate was on par with the country, now it's 500% higher. This was DELIBERATE! This was done by the forces behind the Democrat party, the people who killed JFK, then MLK, then Bobbie Kennedy. Those are the same group that call Rodger Ailes, the man who marched with MLK, against them who are the true racist elitist scum in the world & this country, Racist. Jessie Jackson was around when MLK was killed, not with him. Jessie walked up after he was shot, wiped the blood on himself, and then proceeded to turn on the principals MLK stood for and got wealthy doing it. Jessie Jackson isn't only a traitor, he may well have been part of the assasination plot. And no, you didn't have to be black to be in the inner circle. MLK didn't even look race as an issue with individuals & had contempt for those who did.
24 Jul 2010, 11:16 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Was there a time when both political parties were conservative?

If Wilson and FDR were both liberal, but conservative Democrats fillibusterd the anti-lynching law in 1922, then does that mean there were both liberals and conservatives in the Democratic party? Does that mean there were conservatives in both the Democratic Party and Republican Party during this period?
23 Jul 2010, 12:57 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: So if Wilson and FDR were both progressives, then who fillibustered the anti-lynching law in 1922?

Wilson was president before 1922, FDR was president after 1922, and they were both Democrats. If Democrats were liberal progressives both before and after 1922, then the Senate Democrats who fillibustered the anti-lynching law had to be liberals. Right? I mean, how many times did the Democratic Party switch back and forth from conservative to liberal between Wilson and FDR? Hoover and Coolidge were Republicans, so they would not be very instructive in helping us understand Democrats, would they. Harding was also a Republican. ducky, aha! So you mean there was a time when Democrats were both liberal AND conservative at the same time? So is THIS how "both sides switched?" Was it really just the DEMOCRATS who switched, and the Republicans stayed conservative throughout the period?
23 Jul 2010, 12:39 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: The mosaue at ground zero is a great idea...why dont people understand why?

If ANYTHING would farther isolate the two religions and spur hatred, it's a display of fear and intolerance. If muslims were banning churches in the middle east close the sites of the 91 Baghdad bombings, would that be bigotry against christians? So how is this any different? A true healing process would encourage the mosque, show understanding and acceptance, show an unwillingness to back down. Muslim americans who perished in the towers deserve every bit as much as any other christian american to have a place of worship. This anti-mosque "movement" is only going to increase the negativity. The only way forward is break through the boundaries, but, as usual, republicans/ conservatives don't understand this concept. I know truly believe that intelligence and political party affiliation correlate; democrat, high, republican, well, not so much. Note: I'm atheist and would adore to look every religion dissapear. I do blame islam for 9/11, as I blame christianity for the halt of science. So don't think im pro islam by ANY means.
23 Jul 2010, 12:29 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Was Woodrow Wilson a conservative?

If Wilson was a liberal, then the anti-lynching law was fillibustered in 1922 by liberals. How do Democrats explain this?
23 Jul 2010, 11:30 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Why did Senate Democrats fillibuster the anti-lynching law in 1922?

Cantank, really? Is that so? Please name the individuals who were Democrat members of Congress in 1922 who are now Republicans today. ...crickets chirping.
23 Jul 2010, 11:28 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Is Charlie Crist the luckiest man in American politics today?

Only a few years ago I would have said that the career of "Chain-gang Charlie" (who as a prosecutor made a name for himself advocating slave labor) would be over by now. Now this right winger is poised to be elected as U.S. Senator from Florida as an independent MODERATE (or even a "liberal," depending who you talk to). He got his profile raised by being considered for VP by John McCain, but dodged a bullet by not actually being chosen for the Titanic of political tickets. He veered from Republican orthodoxy by addressing environmental concerns, and is now in a perfect position to benefit from oil-spill politics. Crist successfully brushed away rumors about him being gay, and even though it's well known among Tallahassee insiders and the press that he has had the same boyfriend for years, went through with a show "marriage" that no one seems to be challenging. And unlike the usual political closet cases, he is not a self-hating anti-gay fanatic and has used the term "civil rights" with regards to gays. He's running against Republican Rubio, a right-wing nut, and Democrat Meeks, a non-entity from a political family (nice of like a local Democratic George W., except with no money and fewer corporate connections). Short of an act of God, or a video surfacing of him raping a ten-year-old boy, Charlie Crist is about to be elected to the U.S. Senate as a Florida independent, something which, unless I am mistaken, has never happened before. Is Charlie Crist the luckiest man in American politics today? .
22 Jul 2010, 6:31 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Will Congressional Democrats inability to check Obama's anti-Israel stance lead to Armageddon for Israel?

Should the younger pro-Israel Democrats who voted for Obama over Clinton paid more attention to Obama's work with BIll Ayers on the Annenberg board where Obama and Ayers awarded many million dollars in grants to anti-Israel radical groups, including one led by a former PLO spokesman complicit with suicide attacks on innocent Israeli women and kids? Should Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer and Joe Sestak withhold support for the relax of Obama's agenda until he agrees to help Israel instead of trying to strong-arm them into their possess annhiliation?
22 Jul 2010, 5:32 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: What about the Vast Left-Wing Media conspiracy?

The question: Is there any reason NOT to believe any of this? This is exactly how the liberals in the news media gift themselves and it shows through, whether they believe so or not. Isn't this type of thing exactly why the American people have been calling out the news media on their partisanship? excerpt... In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired. This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks. JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote: "If the right forces us every to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we pick, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction." Until JournoList came along, liberal journalists were rarely part of a team. Neither are conservative journalists today, so far as I know. If there's a team, no one has asked me to join. As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team. My experience with other conservative journalists is that they are loners. One of the most famous conservative columnists of the past half-century, the tardy Robert Novak, is a good example. I knew him well for 35 years. He didn't tell me what stories he was working on nor ask what I was planning to write. He never mentioned how we might promote Republicans or aid the conservative cause, nor did I. What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama's critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It's now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels. The first call I got after the Daily Caller unearthed the emails involving me was from Karl Rove. He said he wanted to talk to his "fellow racist." We laughed about this. But the whole episode was also unhappy. I didn't sputter at the thought of being called a racist. But it was unhappy to look what journalism, or at least a segment of it, had arrive to. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion= Don't tease the kitty: That still doesn't answer the question of why we shouldn't believe that this is exactly how liberal news reporters are...do you have an answer?
22 Jul 2010, 4:38 pm | click here to view more

Voting Question: Does this sound reasonable to anti-choice people or not?

I support choice only when there is rape, incest, birth deformity, or the lady's life is at risk. I prefer life to be chosen. Nonetheless, in those situations, it is a matter of personal judgment. If you guys want to make some headways on abortion, you need to deal with reality. Not just ideological rhetoric. Many, if not most Democrats would agree with my position. But you guys are zealots, and won't hear to reason. You shouldn't be attacking democrats about this anyways. The supreme court, which has been conservative for over 20 years, is the one you need to take your grievance to. Not Democrats, Not republicans, Not the president, Not the abortion clinics. Only the Supreme Court holds jurisdiction over this matter. The only other way is a constitutional amendment. And this you will have to receive Democrat support for. You aren't going to receive enough support unless you guys do five things. 1. address incest, rape, lady's life at risk, and abnormalities (in which the child suffers). 2. morning after pills, and condoms shouldn't be ban (some of you are that extreme). 3. Support sex education, for prevention. 4. Reach out to democrats in a non-partisan, non-villainizing manner. 5. Give mothers some temporary financial support if they need it. This will help them stay positive about their pregnancy. by giving them some reassurance. Not every abortions will be eliminated, but most will. Or they can have it their way, "every or nothing" as it is now. Which doesn't help safe any pregnancy. I would think they would be glad to help most pregnancies give birth. One can argue that many women will claim they were raped, even if they weren't. But if we can agree to what I have outlined. We can then worry about what procedures to put in place to prevent any illegitimate claims. Don't say this shouldn't be in the religious section, because this is sure as hell driven by fundamentalist.
22 Jul 2010, 10:58 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Okay, one more time, can anyone give me one reason to vote Republican?

That doesn't include: - Not Democrat - Vague campaign slogans like "For smaller Government" "For Fiscal Responsibility" Something specific like 'wants to introduce comprehensive nuclear energy bill', and then provide a link to said proposal. Republicans seem to be running on vague terms, and anti-Democratic policies, but have nothing of their possess. How can anyone vote for no substance? "To keep AMERICA from Obama..." I'll file that below 'Not Democrat'
20 Jul 2010, 10:13 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: According to polls there are many Racists amongst the Tea Party and Republicans. Do they discount this?

The Christian Science Monitor took a poll and it shows that racists exist in the Tea Party about as much as in the Republican party and it isnt a tiny amount but rather big. Why do they refuse to believe it? Excerpts from the Christian Science Monitor article / Gallop poll on Tea Party followers: “Data from an April University of Washington poll “paint a more complicated picture” of the tea party, according to Schaller. In general, the concerns of people who describe themselves as tea party followers are not much different from those who identify themselves as Republicans, notes Gallup. This survey found that only 35 percent of tea party adherents rated African-Americans as “difficult-working.” Among whites who disapprove of the tea party, the comparable figure was 55 percent. Some 45 percent of tea partiers judged African-Americans “intelligent,” according to the University of Washington poll. By comparison, 59 percent of anti-tea party whites viewed African-Americans as intelligent.” - Christian Science Monitor Poll: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/20… PS....the poll done on Democrats was by far much much less racist. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0714/Nasty-tea-party-NAACP-racism-feud-Who-s-right
20 Jul 2010, 10:12 pm | click here to view more

Voting Question: Lack of blacks at Tea rallies proves "racism"?

People "attack" the Tea Party because of the "clear racism" that exists due to the "lack of black people in the crowds". Let's review the FACTS...... MORE blacks than ever turned out to vote in 2010 elections. Blacks, who normally give 92% of their votes to the Democrats gave an increased 95% to OBAMA in 2010. Although poll numbers for Obama are CRASHING every around him, blacks CONTINUE to give Obama the uniquely high 93% approval rating. SO..... MORE blacks than ever got involved in voting..... MORE blacks than ever gave their support to the Democrats (Obama).... MORE blacks than any other group CONTINUE to support Obama today.... .... there are virtually NO BLACKS LEFT to be "representing" at the Tea Parties. Looking at the MATH.... Blacks are only 12% of the US population, and 95% of them support Obama... leaving only 5% of America's 12% (or 0.6%) of American Blacks who would be SUPPORTIVE of the Tea Party... and considering the tiny numbers who SUPPORT the Tea Party and ACTUALLY SHOW UP at a rally..... NO WONDER there are very few black faces in the crowd. Are these people so desperate to claim "racism".... or are they really THAT BAD at math that they don't realize the flaw in their arguement? A lack of black faces in the Tea Party crowd is not proof that the Tea Party is "anti-black" .....if anything, it's proof that DISPROPORTIONALLY HIGH numbers of blacks are racist pro-Obama supporters! The basic numbers don't support that expectation, and therefore, the argument that the lack of black faces makes the Tea Party "racist" is completely unfounded. WHY would anyone expect to look "black faces" in a Tea Party crowd?
19 Jul 2010, 9:46 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Will I only get fined up to $750 for spraypainting "murderers" on the Veterans memorial?

READ THIS FIRST!!!!!!! @ ms liberal demacrat (AKA anti-american peice of shlt) look, i can be a stupid little f*cking troll too. Anyone can be an anti american peice of shlt, attention wh0r3 so your not special. I wish you rot in hell you stupid peice of shlt. @every of the relax of you ms liberal democrat is a trolling peice of anti american shlt who would support and ask stupid, f*cked up, and bad questions like this. If given the chance i would beat the hell out of this peice of shlt and everyone with the same mindset or anyone who would even so much as think about perposely dropping our blessed flag much less vandalising a mamorial for the most honorable and brave people in the world. an example of one of her schitzophrenic rants is http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;… http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArdVRVBmCpKKLiR8eq4gjtUAAAAA;_ylv=3?qid=20100716204406AAzaZvv
18 Jul 2010, 4:13 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: What the f**k is wroung with these people?!?!?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100717211227AAS6vDS&r=w#Ep9JPVjcC0PeUiF9mjky Democrat or republican you have yo admit that this little peice of anti american sh1t is crazt
18 Jul 2010, 12:19 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: How many minorities know that MLK was a Republican.. and WHY he was?

Why Martin Luther King was a Republican.. Written by Dr Frances Rice.. PHD in History. And a proud Black lady ! http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500 It should arrive as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost every black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s. During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school home doors, turned skin-burning flame hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. Contrary to the untrue assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not every migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan. Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks needy, mad and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous. Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans. In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of difficult work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and tiny businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
17 Jul 2010, 7:50 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Why did the Tea Party Take Down the Billboard?

An Iowa tea party group on Wednesday replaced a billboard comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin, calling the sign a bad decision that reflected poorly on the organization. Workers papered over the sign in downtown Mason City at the request of the North Iowa Tea Party. "We got it covered up first thing this morning," said Kent Beatty, the general manager of the company that owns the billboard. The roughly 200-member tea party group had the original sign put up last week. It showed photographs of Obama, Nazi leader Hitler and communist leader Lenin beneath the labels "Democrat Socialism," "National Socialism," and "Marxist Socialism." After the billboard drew sharp criticism by other state and national tea party leaders, members of the local group sought the change. North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson said he and other leaders agreed with critics that the image of Obama between Hitler and Lenin was offensive. He said the images overwhelmed the intended message of anti-socialism. "They are absolutely right in their criticism because the image of Hitler just totally wiped everything else and it misrepresents the tea party movement," Johnson said. "They were right from the standpoint that the image was not a positive reflection on the tea people." Johnson said Hitler images are usually not allowed at North Iowa Tea Party gatherings. Removal of the sign was welcomed by the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, a New York-based group. The North Iowa Tea Party "acted properly in removing the grotesquely offensive sign which should never have been put up in the first place. Had they not acted to remove it they would have severely damaged the credibility of legitimate political causes they espouse," the group said in a statement. "We ask that political groups do not trivialize our suffering in the future by making untrue analogies with Hitler's horrendous crimes." For now, the sign has been plastered over with one urging people to notify officials before digging. But Johnson said the North Iowa Tea Party plans to put up a new sign soon. That sign will feature a quote that some attribute to Thomas Jefferson that reads, "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Others argue Jefferson never wrote the statement. Listed below, in smaller print, will read, "The North Iowa Tea Party stands for individual responsibility, freedom, liberty, less spending, smaller government." "It's going to be little more bland," Johnson said. 'We paid for a month, so we don't want to waste the money." Why did they think it was ok to put it up then take it down? What ever Happened to Standing by your convictions?
17 Jul 2010, 10:48 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Why do Prog Propaganda Propagators have long propaganda laced answers to questions before they could read them?

They accuse people with well thought out questions of being brain washed by Fox News, Rush Limbagh or whatever, when they say things the Fox News or Rush never put out. You don't hear Fox talking for instance about Bill Clinton having stolen close 1000 FBI files on republicans and it never being investigated, that among many other things Bill did. They just don't talk about it. They don't talk about Globalist influences on the US. Obama getting contributions from terrorist Hamas and paying them 1 billion $ for it later. You don't look them talking about Obama's receiving piles in contributions in tiny increments totaling billions given from Glob bankers with an interest in taking down the US economy who also play a huge roll in the UN's subversive anti US fraudulent activities they engage in. Or the Anti Israeli campaign they engage in through the UN & BBC as well as media & entertainment outlets they control. How the same people who do this push Constantly for one world governance & are using the Anthropological Global Warming Fraud to do it. They don't talk about how Kennedy bucked these guys, made a speech about them as he was working to remove the US from the Federal Reserve Control 10 days before he was killed because he wouldn't go along, same with MLK who wouldn't play & Bobbie Kennedy. They just don't go there. So, how is this coming from a brain washed Fox Viewer? The fact is, it's not. It's coming from a person & others who have studied the political situation in the world for decades. People who understand the the Progs & the Globs have Republicans as well as Democrats, but they absolutely possess the Democrat party now. They don't possess Republicans to nearly that extent basically because Republicans are less herdable and more into cause & effect and individual rights. Because Metro people think differently and can be pushed easily by public opinion which can be controlled in those areas very well by TV & entertainment because they mostly go with what everyone else thinks is chilly as they are concentered on their appeal to those around them as that is very important to success in that environment, when in less concentrated populations success is more involved with getting things to work, much more centered on cause & effect. A Farmer can't live on talk, if his crops die, he losses. If a lawyer has an idea to push which isn't true, it doesn't matter, as long as the idiots he's selling believe. Now, did I receive that from Fox News? Rush Limbagh? lol You can hear to the thinkers out there. People who've put a lot of investigation in & have a history of it, or you can go with the pop culture that makes goofs like Justin Beiber popular and the idiots who would take a moron pop stars word for political subjects like the Daily Show which is the biggest thing in shaping young liberals public opinion, that's a fact shown on many polls ... which would be yanked in a heart beat if they went against their glob financiers in any substantive way. So they don't go against them, shows like Saturday Night live, Lenno, that moron from SNL who follows him ... they have to toe the line or they are done & vilified, essentially black balled. If they go along they receive wealthy, win awards, every that good stuff ... so hear to them? lol, that's totally stupid, and so are the people who do. So who is credible here? The crowd of fools who will buy into anything popular? The shills who work to discredit anything that doesn't toe the Prog line? Or the thinkers out there who post in here? Who say things even Fox News & Rush Limbaugh, even Glen Beck fears to repeat? Based on truth & not political agenda or fear? Or are you just to shallow & or stupid to understand that truth is more than just public opinion, which is and has always been stupid, and most who can influence it for sale?
16 Jul 2010, 8:53 am | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Would the democrat party be better off without anti-Americans like Ed Schultz, Olberman, & Chrssy Mathews?


16 Jul 2010, 3:09 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Does the constant right-wing whine about "liberal racism" strike anyone besides me as a little TOO defensive?

I have seen it argued here, many times, that the KKK is a liberal organization, that the Nazis were liberals, that the Democrats are the only racist party, and that Barack and Michelle Obama hate white people. Strangely, many of the same people who argue that the Obamas are anti-white racists ALSO argue, based among other things on Senator Byrd's former affiliation with the KKK, that every Democrats are anti-BLACK racists. One use of the word "cracker" by one Black Panther nutjob and some of the right-wingers act as if someone was burning a cross on their front lawn. Methinks the cons doth protest too much. Look, there are PLENTY of fine members of the Republican party who don't have a racist bone in their bodies. There are PLENTY of people with a conservative political philosophy stressing fiscal responsibility and low taxes who would never think of discriminating against persons on the basis of race. But those are NOT the nice of conservatives that take every claim of anti-Black racism and say in response, "I know you are, but what am I?" The constant attempt to portray every single non-conservative as a white- OR black-hating person is a little ridiculous. It's such a defensive overreaction that one starts to wonder. * I freely admit that the "New Black Panthers" are stupid racists. Is there any TEA Party defender here who recognizes the possibility that there could be even ONE racist in their midst?
15 Jul 2010, 1:12 pm | click here to view more

Resolved Question: Why can't conservatives just say that Obama is to their left, he is a social democrat,?

he is much more believing in a safety net than we do, it's a matter of margins, it's a matter of degree, it's not the end of the world? Why must they instead call him a fascist for his stimulus efforts, a socialist for providing healthcare, a terrorist for NOT being anti-Islam, a racist for being black, a thug an a mobster for being from Chicago, and unwilling to recognize his citizenship. If they would tone-down the rhetoric, do you understand that people would AT LEAST start to take you seriously? This is a serious question.
15 Jul 2010, 11:18 am | click here to view more