Well Passion, if you are talking about extremes, yes they exist. However,I don't think I have ever heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda. There are many conservatives that are not Christian. But the media and left stereotypes conservatives and Republicans as Christian, racist, and wealthy by birthright or illiterate rednecks. I think many on the left need to examine their own prejudices and stereotypes before casting stones at others. Some of the most thoughtful people I know are atheists who don't have an agenda but certainly lean right. People who aren't afraid to tell the truth, yet when they do, the left wants to label them as racist, intolerant, xenophobic, etc.
The two most racist public figures in the nation are the "Reverends" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have no interest in helping minorities, only stiring up racial strife and keeping it alive to line their own pockets. If you want to talk about hypocrites, you don't need to look much further. For every Ralph Reed (is he even relevant anymore), there is an Al Sharpton.
And the left certainly has a version of "you're going to hell of y don't believe like I do". It's "you're a bad person if your don't believe like I do".
Well Passion, if you are talking about extremes, yes they exist. However,I don't think I have ever heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda. There are many conservatives that are not Christian. But the media and left stereotypes conservatives and Republicans as Christian, racist, and wealthy by birthright or illiterate rednecks. I think many on the left need to examine their own prejudices and stereotypes before casting stones at others. Some of the most thoughtful people I know are atheists who don't have an agenda but certainly lean right. People who aren't afraid to tell the truth, yet when they do, the left wants to label them as racist, intolerant, xenophobic, etc.
The two most racist public figures in the nation are the "Reverends" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have no interest in helping minorities, only stiring up racial strife and keeping it alive to line their own pockets. If you want to talk about hypocrites, you don't need to look much further. For every Ralph Reed (is he even relevant anymore), there is an Al Sharpton.
And the left certainly has a version of "you're going to hell of y don't believe like I do". It's "you're a bad person if your don't believe like I do".
Aye aye aye. Where to begin. First off, let's go back 50 years. It's no wonder that the south suddenly flipped from Democrat to Republican after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a Democrat President - LBJ. And these are the people that occupy "the Bible belt."
You've never heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda? Allow me to evict you from the rock you've been living under. "Godless is about the underlying mental disease that creates liberalism." So, liberals are "Godless." How about this quote to justify imposing Christianity on others: "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is." All of these quotes (and many others) are basically saying that "Christians" share her insane right-wing beliefs, and that to be Christian means to be Republican.
Here is another example of using Christianity to further an agenda: Perhaps the greatest crime by hard right Christian conservative leaders (again, I'm a Christian, but not a wacko) is the way they dupe poor white people in the south. They hide behind the Bible and talk about "northern elitists," when they do everything they can to undermine the quality of life of the very people that elect them. How? They try to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. "Cutting taxes" on who? When you cut income taxes, the revenue must be made up elsewhere, so what happens? Taxes on gasoline, license tabs, groceries, and everything else that the average American consumes in his/her daily life.
Jesse Jackson's worse crime is that he is a grandstander, and an opportunist, especially when race is NOT an issue. He uses his own people to acquire wealth. Al Sharpton use to do that. Not as much recently. Now, I don't know Jackson, but Sharpton is all around DC, and few people (if any that have met him) consider him a racist. However, if you're going to write the history of a man's life, then let's be fair. Jackson did a great deal during the civil rights movement and afterward to advance the cause of equality. A great deal. Definitely a mixed bag with him.
And I completely disagree that for every Ralph Reed there is an Al Sharpton. I just watched on TV this thing called the "Conservative Political Action Conference." You know, the one that didn't invite Chris Christie because he had the audacity to thank President Obama for helping his state. There are far more Ralph Reeds than Al Sharptons. Come to a tea party rally in DC. They're both sad and humorous.
Look, if you want to get angry at somebody for painting Christians in a negative light, don't point fingers at the "media." You're better off pointing to the right wing extrimists like Ann Coulter and the leaders of the tea party. THEY are the reason that Republicans have suffered setbacks in recent elections, and are seen as out of touch. As long as they give the press (except the completely neutral Fox News, of course eh hem) ammunition, people will fire. They shoot themselves in the foot with their ridiculous comments about "legitimate rape," and that people are going to hell for supporting marriage equality.
Jesse Jackson's crimes are far worse than grandstanding. He does more to keep minorities in the position of victim, to remain powerless, to remain in a state of dependence, than the the worst racist couldn't even dream about. And it's sickening he does it to line his hypocritical pockets. That you can't see that so all we need to know
I could write a TL;DR post on how wrong you are about taxes. The starting point is too basic that ain't no one got time for that.
Btw, I'm not angry. Keep your assumptions in check.
Well Passion, if you are talking about extremes, yes they exist. However,I don't think I have ever heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda. There are many conservatives that are not Christian. But the media and left stereotypes conservatives and Republicans as Christian, racist, and wealthy by birthright or illiterate rednecks. I think many on the left need to examine their own prejudices and stereotypes before casting stones at others. Some of the most thoughtful people I know are atheists who don't have an agenda but certainly lean right. People who aren't afraid to tell the truth, yet when they do, the left wants to label them as racist, intolerant, xenophobic, etc.
The two most racist public figures in the nation are the "Reverends" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have no interest in helping minorities, only stiring up racial strife and keeping it alive to line their own pockets. If you want to talk about hypocrites, you don't need to look much further. For every Ralph Reed (is he even relevant anymore), there is an Al Sharpton.
And the left certainly has a version of "you're going to hell of y don't believe like I do". It's "you're a bad person if your don't believe like I do".
Aye aye aye. Where to begin. First off, let's go back 50 years. It's no wonder that the south suddenly flipped from Democrat to Republican after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a Democrat President - LBJ. And these are the people that occupy "the Bible belt."
You've never heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda? Allow me to evict you from the rock you've been living under. "Godless is about the underlying mental disease that creates liberalism." So, liberals are "Godless." How about this quote to justify imposing Christianity on others: "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is." All of these quotes (and many others) are basically saying that "Christians" share her insane right-wing beliefs, and that to be Christian means to be Republican.
Here is another example of using Christianity to further an agenda: Perhaps the greatest crime by hard right Christian conservative leaders (again, I'm a Christian, but not a wacko) is the way they dupe poor white people in the south. They hide behind the Bible and talk about "northern elitists," when they do everything they can to undermine the quality of life of the very people that elect them. How? They try to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. "Cutting taxes" on who? When you cut income taxes, the revenue must be made up elsewhere, so what happens? Taxes on gasoline, license tabs, groceries, and everything else that the average American consumes in his/her daily life.
Jesse Jackson's worse crime is that he is a grandstander, and an opportunist, especially when race is NOT an issue. He uses his own people to acquire wealth. Al Sharpton use to do that. Not as much recently. Now, I don't know Jackson, but Sharpton is all around DC, and few people (if any that have met him) consider him a racist. However, if you're going to write the history of a man's life, then let's be fair. Jackson did a great deal during the civil rights movement and afterward to advance the cause of equality. A great deal. Definitely a mixed bag with him.
And I completely disagree that for every Ralph Reed there is an Al Sharpton. I just watched on TV this thing called the "Conservative Political Action Conference." You know, the one that didn't invite Chris Christie because he had the audacity to thank President Obama for helping his state. There are far more Ralph Reeds than Al Sharptons. Come to a tea party rally in DC. They're both sad and humorous.
Look, if you want to get angry at somebody for painting Christians in a negative light, don't point fingers at the "media." You're better off pointing to the right wing extrimists like Ann Coulter and the leaders of the tea party. THEY are the reason that Republicans have suffered setbacks in recent elections, and are seen as out of touch. As long as they give the press (except the completely neutral Fox News, of course eh hem) ammunition, people will fire. They shoot themselves in the foot with their ridiculous comments about "legitimate rape," and that people are going to hell for supporting marriage equality.
Yes.
Ann Coulter is a miserable, reactionary cunt. I doubt she's like this in real life, but it doesn't really matter. Man hard right conservatives eat her "musings" up.
Regarding taxes, you hit the nail on the head. Every single American needs to understand this. The rich were taxed at a much higher rate in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. So were corporations. The economy still grew. GDP was fine. For the most part, the US ddi fine and was, if anything, even more dominant. The sky didn't fall. And guess what, the debt was not a problem then. The middle class was much stronger. Single earner (the man, not the woman) households were common. Guys working pedestrian jobs could afford to buy second homes, albeit modest ones. But the powers that be have tricked this mass population you mentioned into voting against their economic interests with god, guns, and gays.
Nowadays you're an elitist if you mention evolution and dare to ask the real elites to pay three percent more in income tax.
Well Passion, if you are talking about extremes, yes they exist. However,I don't think I have ever heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda. There are many conservatives that are not Christian. But the media and left stereotypes conservatives and Republicans as Christian, racist, and wealthy by birthright or illiterate rednecks. I think many on the left need to examine their own prejudices and stereotypes before casting stones at others. Some of the most thoughtful people I know are atheists who don't have an agenda but certainly lean right. People who aren't afraid to tell the truth, yet when they do, the left wants to label them as racist, intolerant, xenophobic, etc.
The two most racist public figures in the nation are the "Reverends" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have no interest in helping minorities, only stiring up racial strife and keeping it alive to line their own pockets. If you want to talk about hypocrites, you don't need to look much further. For every Ralph Reed (is he even relevant anymore), there is an Al Sharpton.
And the left certainly has a version of "you're going to hell of y don't believe like I do". It's "you're a bad person if your don't believe like I do".
Aye aye aye. Where to begin. First off, let's go back 50 years. It's no wonder that the south suddenly flipped from Democrat to Republican after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a Democrat President - LBJ. And these are the people that occupy "the Bible belt."
You've never heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda? Allow me to evict you from the rock you've been living under. "Godless is about the underlying mental disease that creates liberalism." So, liberals are "Godless." How about this quote to justify imposing Christianity on others: "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is." All of these quotes (and many others) are basically saying that "Christians" share her insane right-wing beliefs, and that to be Christian means to be Republican.
Here is another example of using Christianity to further an agenda: Perhaps the greatest crime by hard right Christian conservative leaders (again, I'm a Christian, but not a wacko) is the way they dupe poor white people in the south. They hide behind the Bible and talk about "northern elitists," when they do everything they can to undermine the quality of life of the very people that elect them. How? They try to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. "Cutting taxes" on who? When you cut income taxes, the revenue must be made up elsewhere, so what happens? Taxes on gasoline, license tabs, groceries, and everything else that the average American consumes in his/her daily life.
Jesse Jackson's worse crime is that he is a grandstander, and an opportunist, especially when race is NOT an issue. He uses his own people to acquire wealth. Al Sharpton use to do that. Not as much recently. Now, I don't know Jackson, but Sharpton is all around DC, and few people (if any that have met him) consider him a racist. However, if you're going to write the history of a man's life, then let's be fair. Jackson did a great deal during the civil rights movement and afterward to advance the cause of equality. A great deal. Definitely a mixed bag with him.
And I completely disagree that for every Ralph Reed there is an Al Sharpton. I just watched on TV this thing called the "Conservative Political Action Conference." You know, the one that didn't invite Chris Christie because he had the audacity to thank President Obama for helping his state. There are far more Ralph Reeds than Al Sharptons. Come to a tea party rally in DC. They're both sad and humorous.
Look, if you want to get angry at somebody for painting Christians in a negative light, don't point fingers at the "media." You're better off pointing to the right wing extrimists like Ann Coulter and the leaders of the tea party. THEY are the reason that Republicans have suffered setbacks in recent elections, and are seen as out of touch. As long as they give the press (except the completely neutral Fox News, of course eh hem) ammunition, people will fire. They shoot themselves in the foot with their ridiculous comments about "legitimate rape," and that people are going to hell for supporting marriage equality.
Yes.
Ann Coulter is a miserable, reactionary cunt. I doubt she's like this in real life, but it doesn't really matter. Man hard right conservatives eat her "musings" up.
Regarding taxes, you hit the nail on the head. Every single American needs to understand this. The rich were taxed at a much higher rate in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. So were corporations. The economy still grew. GDP was fine. For the most part, the US ddi fine and was, if anything, even more dominant. The sky didn't fall. And guess what, the debt was not a problem then. The middle class was much stronger. Single earner (the man, not the woman) households were common. Guys working pedestrian jobs could afford to buy second homes, albeit modest ones. But the powers that be have tricked this mass population you mentioned into voting against their economic interests with god, guns, and gays.
Nowadays you're an elitist if you mention evolution and dare to ask the real elites to pay three percent more in income tax.
Fire Marshall Bill! My Dawg! If only more people knew the evolution that has taken place. Shifting the tax burden to middle income earners has been a consistent strategy, and one that people are too 'thick' to understand. It's simply too complex. Oh, and when Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper income earners in 1993, what happened? Did it tank like Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Bob Dole predicted. Not quite...the economy exploded. The largest peacetime expansion since WWII.
The three G's (God, gays, guns) is pretty basic, and they understand the word "tax." But they don't know how "cutting taxes" effects them. 'Uhhh...which taxes will be cut, and how do you propose that we make up the revenue?' Then you get a vague answer about cutting government spending.
'Uhh...cut spending where?' Well, they know that they can't cut spending enough to make up for all of their proposed tax cuts, so the deficit and debt explode (as it did after the Bush tax cuts), and they'll gradually allow state and local municipalities to increase taxes on things that average people purchase and need every day.
And if Paul Ryan and his gestapo did have their way, Medicaid would be gone, and Social Security recipients would have put all of their reliance into the stock market (how would that have worked out in 2008?).
But that's Ok, as long as you get to have your guns, and you get a representative that prays and doesn't like gays, that's all that matters I guess. Wealthy republicans must laugh at the poor saps that vote republican. When it comes to healthcare, education, veterans benefits, and a host of other issues, they would be much better with Democrats in power...but heck, they you might have gays getting married. YIKES!
Well Passion, if you are talking about extremes, yes they exist. However,I don't think I have ever heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda. There are many conservatives that are not Christian. But the media and left stereotypes conservatives and Republicans as Christian, racist, and wealthy by birthright or illiterate rednecks. I think many on the left need to examine their own prejudices and stereotypes before casting stones at others. Some of the most thoughtful people I know are atheists who don't have an agenda but certainly lean right. People who aren't afraid to tell the truth, yet when they do, the left wants to label them as racist, intolerant, xenophobic, etc.
The two most racist public figures in the nation are the "Reverends" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have no interest in helping minorities, only stiring up racial strife and keeping it alive to line their own pockets. If you want to talk about hypocrites, you don't need to look much further. For every Ralph Reed (is he even relevant anymore), there is an Al Sharpton.
And the left certainly has a version of "you're going to hell of y don't believe like I do". It's "you're a bad person if your don't believe like I do".
Aye aye aye. Where to begin. First off, let's go back 50 years. It's no wonder that the south suddenly flipped from Democrat to Republican after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a Democrat President - LBJ. And these are the people that occupy "the Bible belt."
You've never heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda? Allow me to evict you from the rock you've been living under. "Godless is about the underlying mental disease that creates liberalism." So, liberals are "Godless." How about this quote to justify imposing Christianity on others: "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is." All of these quotes (and many others) are basically saying that "Christians" share her insane right-wing beliefs, and that to be Christian means to be Republican.
Here is another example of using Christianity to further an agenda: Perhaps the greatest crime by hard right Christian conservative leaders (again, I'm a Christian, but not a wacko) is the way they dupe poor white people in the south. They hide behind the Bible and talk about "northern elitists," when they do everything they can to undermine the quality of life of the very people that elect them. How? They try to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. "Cutting taxes" on who? When you cut income taxes, the revenue must be made up elsewhere, so what happens? Taxes on gasoline, license tabs, groceries, and everything else that the average American consumes in his/her daily life.
Jesse Jackson's worse crime is that he is a grandstander, and an opportunist, especially when race is NOT an issue. He uses his own people to acquire wealth. Al Sharpton use to do that. Not as much recently. Now, I don't know Jackson, but Sharpton is all around DC, and few people (if any that have met him) consider him a racist. However, if you're going to write the history of a man's life, then let's be fair. Jackson did a great deal during the civil rights movement and afterward to advance the cause of equality. A great deal. Definitely a mixed bag with him.
And I completely disagree that for every Ralph Reed there is an Al Sharpton. I just watched on TV this thing called the "Conservative Political Action Conference." You know, the one that didn't invite Chris Christie because he had the audacity to thank President Obama for helping his state. There are far more Ralph Reeds than Al Sharptons. Come to a tea party rally in DC. They're both sad and humorous.
Look, if you want to get angry at somebody for painting Christians in a negative light, don't point fingers at the "media." You're better off pointing to the right wing extrimists like Ann Coulter and the leaders of the tea party. THEY are the reason that Republicans have suffered setbacks in recent elections, and are seen as out of touch. As long as they give the press (except the completely neutral Fox News, of course eh hem) ammunition, people will fire. They shoot themselves in the foot with their ridiculous comments about "legitimate rape," and that people are going to hell for supporting marriage equality.
Yes.
Ann Coulter is a miserable, reactionary cunt. I doubt she's like this in real life, but it doesn't really matter. Man hard right conservatives eat her "musings" up.
Regarding taxes, you hit the nail on the head. Every single American needs to understand this. The rich were taxed at a much higher rate in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. So were corporations. The economy still grew. GDP was fine. For the most part, the US ddi fine and was, if anything, even more dominant. The sky didn't fall. And guess what, the debt was not a problem then. The middle class was much stronger. Single earner (the man, not the woman) households were common. Guys working pedestrian jobs could afford to buy second homes, albeit modest ones. But the powers that be have tricked this mass population you mentioned into voting against their economic interests with god, guns, and gays.
Nowadays you're an elitist if you mention evolution and dare to ask the real elites to pay three percent more in income tax.
Fire Marshall Bill! My Dawg! If only more people knew the evolution that has taken place. Shifting the tax burden to middle income earners has been a consistent strategy, and one that people are too 'thick' to understand. It's simply too complex. Oh, and when Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper income earners in 1993, what happened? Did it tank like Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Bob Dole predicted. Not quite...the economy exploded. The largest peacetime expansion since WWII.
The three G's (God, gays, guns) is pretty basic, and they understand the word "tax." But they don't know how "cutting taxes" effects them. 'Uhhh...which taxes will be cut, and how do you propose that we make up the revenue?' Then you get a vague answer about cutting government spending.
'Uhh...cut spending where?' Well, they know that they can't cut spending enough to make up for all of their proposed tax cuts, so the deficit and debt explode (as it did after the Bush tax cuts), and they'll gradually allow state and local municipalities to increase taxes on things that average people purchase and need every day.
And if Paul Ryan and his gestapo did have their way, Medicaid would be gone, and Social Security recipients would have put all of their reliance into the stock market (how would that have worked out in 2008?).
But that's Ok, as long as you get to have your guns, and you get a representative that prays and doesn't like gays, that's all that matters I guess. Wealthy republicans must laugh at the poor saps that vote republican. When it comes to healthcare, education, veterans benefits, and a host of other issues, they would be much better with Democrats in power...but heck, they you might have gays getting married. YIKES!
If there was ever a time for that Adam Corrolla quote about Swastikas and Coexisting, this might be it.
Once Passion and Damone started going back and forth in earnest, it was inevitable that Godwin's Law would be enacted.
Yep, classic libtard move. When debating, classify your opponent as a racist or nazi within 3 moves.
Quite the economics expert that Passion is.
Damone - Please find where I called you a "racist or nazi." In contrast, your "libtard" comment would classify as the first shot in a name-calling war.
I don't know you, but I highly doubt by your comments that you're a racist, or right-wing religious wacko. You're probably like a lot of my republican friends - claiming to be republican because of economic & budgetary issues, but probably a social moderate in that you don't get caught up in a lot of the far right's blather on minorities, immigrants, gays and guns. Again, just my guess.
My problem with you is that you are unwilling to admit that: 1) there are a lot of racist, sexist & homphobic people in the republican party (though not you or people you associate with); and 2) the republican party is in the midst of a civil war, trying to define itself. Will it go toward the tea party, or will it cut the wackos loose and actually join the 21st century.
Blaming the "liberal media" will get you (and the republican party) nowhere. Your efforts should be geared toward nominating candidates that won't alienate everyone except old white men and the women they subjugate.
Once Passion and Damone started going back and forth in earnest, it was inevitable that Godwin's Law would be enacted.
Yep, classic libtard move. When debating, classify your opponent as a racist or nazi within 3 moves.
Quite the economics expert that Passion is.
Damone - Please find where I called you a "racist or nazi." In contrast, your "libtard" comment would classify as the first shot in a name-calling war.
I don't know you, but I highly doubt by your comments that you're a racist, or right-wing religious wacko. You're probably like a lot of my republican friends - claiming to be republican because of economic & budgetary issues, but probably a social moderate in that you don't get caught up in a lot of the far right's blather on minorities, immigrants, gays and guns. Again, just my guess.
My problem with you is that you are unwilling to admit that: 1) there are a lot of racist, sexist & homphobic people in the republican party (though not you or people you associate with); and 2) the republican party is in the midst of a civil war, trying to define itself. Will it go toward the tea party, or will it cut the wackos loose and actually join the 21st century.
Blaming the "liberal media" will get you (and the republican party) nowhere. Your efforts should be geared toward nominating candidates that won't alienate everyone except old white men and the women they subjugate.
You labeled those with Paul Ryan economic philosophies the gestapo (i.e. Nazi).
Nope. Doesn't help. Don't see Damone's name in that group. Thanks for trying.
How about the rest of my post, or are 2 sentences your limit?
I explained to you his comment about the name calling. Perhaps if Damone took it as you calling him the gestapo, this should indicate he thinks Ryan is right economically?
As for the rest of your post it looks pretty geared at Damone specifically. I'm not particularly interested in your little fight. I do think labeling Paul Ryan and those like him the gestapo does nothing but take away from your argument.
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we, as a nation, are fucked. We are getting close.
The problem I have with you is you won't admit that real and damaging racism comes from the left. They've created a whole paradigm where minorities need to be protected from the big bad rich white man. Let the "good" white people protect you. We know you're not capable of doing it yourself. And oh, if your a successful minority in the Republican Party, you are a sell out, Uncle Tom, trader, etc. Mia Love, Condi Rice, Bobby Jindahl, Marco Rubio, all racists.
Now lets get back to talking about a how bad all conservatives are because a guy from Alaska said wetback. That sells better and keeps the minorities in check.
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
Comments
The two most racist public figures in the nation are the "Reverends" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have no interest in helping minorities, only stiring up racial strife and keeping it alive to line their own pockets. If you want to talk about hypocrites, you don't need to look much further. For every Ralph Reed (is he even relevant anymore), there is an Al Sharpton.
And the left certainly has a version of "you're going to hell of y don't believe like I do". It's "you're a bad person if your don't believe like I do".
You've never heard Ann Coulter use Christianity to further an agenda? Allow me to evict you from the rock you've been living under. "Godless is about the underlying mental disease that creates liberalism." So, liberals are "Godless." How about this quote to justify imposing Christianity on others: "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is." All of these quotes (and many others) are basically saying that "Christians" share her insane right-wing beliefs, and that to be Christian means to be Republican.
Here is another example of using Christianity to further an agenda: Perhaps the greatest crime by hard right Christian conservative leaders (again, I'm a Christian, but not a wacko) is the way they dupe poor white people in the south. They hide behind the Bible and talk about "northern elitists," when they do everything they can to undermine the quality of life of the very people that elect them. How? They try to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. "Cutting taxes" on who? When you cut income taxes, the revenue must be made up elsewhere, so what happens? Taxes on gasoline, license tabs, groceries, and everything else that the average American consumes in his/her daily life.
Jesse Jackson's worse crime is that he is a grandstander, and an opportunist, especially when race is NOT an issue. He uses his own people to acquire wealth. Al Sharpton use to do that. Not as much recently. Now, I don't know Jackson, but Sharpton is all around DC, and few people (if any that have met him) consider him a racist. However, if you're going to write the history of a man's life, then let's be fair. Jackson did a great deal during the civil rights movement and afterward to advance the cause of equality. A great deal. Definitely a mixed bag with him.
And I completely disagree that for every Ralph Reed there is an Al Sharpton. I just watched on TV this thing called the "Conservative Political Action Conference." You know, the one that didn't invite Chris Christie because he had the audacity to thank President Obama for helping his state. There are far more Ralph Reeds than Al Sharptons. Come to a tea party rally in DC. They're both sad and humorous.
Look, if you want to get angry at somebody for painting Christians in a negative light, don't point fingers at the "media." You're better off pointing to the right wing extrimists like Ann Coulter and the leaders of the tea party. THEY are the reason that Republicans have suffered setbacks in recent elections, and are seen as out of touch. As long as they give the press (except the completely neutral Fox News, of course eh hem) ammunition, people will fire. They shoot themselves in the foot with their ridiculous comments about "legitimate rape," and that people are going to hell for supporting marriage equality.
I could write a TL;DR post on how wrong you are about taxes. The starting point is too basic that ain't no one got time for that.
Btw, I'm not angry. Keep your assumptions in check.
Ann Coulter is a miserable, reactionary cunt. I doubt she's like this in real life, but it doesn't really matter. Man hard right conservatives eat her "musings" up.
Regarding taxes, you hit the nail on the head. Every single American needs to understand this. The rich were taxed at a much higher rate in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. So were corporations. The economy still grew. GDP was fine. For the most part, the US ddi fine and was, if anything, even more dominant. The sky didn't fall. And guess what, the debt was not a problem then. The middle class was much stronger. Single earner (the man, not the woman) households were common. Guys working pedestrian jobs could afford to buy second homes, albeit modest ones. But the powers that be have tricked this mass population you mentioned into voting against their economic interests with god, guns, and gays.
Nowadays you're an elitist if you mention evolution and dare to ask the real elites to pay three percent more in income tax.
The three G's (God, gays, guns) is pretty basic, and they understand the word "tax." But they don't know how "cutting taxes" effects them. 'Uhhh...which taxes will be cut, and how do you propose that we make up the revenue?' Then you get a vague answer about cutting government spending.
'Uhh...cut spending where?' Well, they know that they can't cut spending enough to make up for all of their proposed tax cuts, so the deficit and debt explode (as it did after the Bush tax cuts), and they'll gradually allow state and local municipalities to increase taxes on things that average people purchase and need every day.
And if Paul Ryan and his gestapo did have their way, Medicaid would be gone, and Social Security recipients would have put all of their reliance into the stock market (how would that have worked out in 2008?).
But that's Ok, as long as you get to have your guns, and you get a representative that prays and doesn't like gays, that's all that matters I guess. Wealthy republicans must laugh at the poor saps that vote republican. When it comes to healthcare, education, veterans benefits, and a host of other issues, they would be much better with Democrats in power...but heck, they you might have gays getting married. YIKES!
Quite the economics expert that Passion is.
I don't know you, but I highly doubt by your comments that you're a racist, or right-wing religious wacko. You're probably like a lot of my republican friends - claiming to be republican because of economic & budgetary issues, but probably a social moderate in that you don't get caught up in a lot of the far right's blather on minorities, immigrants, gays and guns. Again, just my guess.
My problem with you is that you are unwilling to admit that: 1) there are a lot of racist, sexist & homphobic people in the republican party (though not you or people you associate with); and 2) the republican party is in the midst of a civil war, trying to define itself. Will it go toward the tea party, or will it cut the wackos loose and actually join the 21st century.
Blaming the "liberal media" will get you (and the republican party) nowhere. Your efforts should be geared toward nominating candidates that won't alienate everyone except old white men and the women they subjugate.
Hope that helps.
How about the rest of my post, or are 2 sentences your limit?
As for the rest of your post it looks pretty geared at Damone specifically. I'm not particularly interested in your little fight. I do think labeling Paul Ryan and those like him the gestapo does nothing but take away from your argument.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we, as a nation, are fucked. We are getting close.
The problem I have with you is you won't admit that real and damaging racism comes from the left. They've created a whole paradigm where minorities need to be protected from the big bad rich white man. Let the "good" white people protect you. We know you're not capable of doing it yourself. And oh, if your a successful minority in the Republican Party, you are a sell out, Uncle Tom, trader, etc. Mia Love, Condi Rice, Bobby Jindahl, Marco Rubio, all racists.
Now lets get back to talking about a how bad all conservatives are because a guy from Alaska said wetback. That sells better and keeps the minorities in check.
Culture matters.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.