Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.All of which is irrelevant. Forrest was not a founder of the Klan; he was recruited BY it to be its figurehead. And in less than two years, he officially disbanded it, citing its out-of-control violence. Either way it was not a political outfit when he got there and it was still not a political outfit when he disbanded it.
Unfortunately for your blind partisan hackitude, there's no such thing. No political party "gave rise to the KKK" at all, and I proved that in post 467 and again in 557. Gave you a dozen links ALL of which refute that.
Moreover your original claim you're STILL trying desperately to dance away from was that the Klan started as a "leftist organization". I continue to challenge you to support that. You continue to run away from it.
What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.
The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
you're wrong.Exactly, the KKK can belong to any Party or no Party.The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
The Klan do belong to one ideology and one ideology only, CON$ervatism!
proofCON$ervatism is a HATE religion.Liberalism is a mental disorder.
about what? We all know that Reagan cleaned Carter's clock. What the hell would a republican be concerned with after watching carter's fail?36 years later the Right are still whining and blaming Carter.Seven years later, Obama and his clown followers are still whining and blaming Bush.
asked and answered in the thread, next?dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.All of which is irrelevant. Forrest was not a founder of the Klan; he was recruited BY it to be its figurehead. And in less than two years, he officially disbanded it, citing its out-of-control violence. Either way it was not a political outfit when he got there and it was still not a political outfit when he disbanded it.
Unfortunately for your blind partisan hackitude, there's no such thing. No political party "gave rise to the KKK" at all, and I proved that in post 467 and again in 557. Gave you a dozen links ALL of which refute that.
Moreover your original claim you're STILL trying desperately to dance away from was that the Klan started as a "leftist organization". I continue to challenge you to support that. You continue to run away from it.
What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.
The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.
What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.
The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
History already states that the democratic party was the influence to the KKK and you proved that. So I don't understand what is your point to all of this.
so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.
What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.
The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
History already states that the democratic party was the influence to the KKK and you proved that. So I don't understand what is your point to all of this.
and the parrot singing continues. Nicely done your handler would be proud of you.so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.[/quote[What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.
The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
WTF are YOU talking about? I never said it was "republican [sic]". I *did* say -- specifically -- that it was not affiliated with ANY political party.
Are you illiterate?
History already states that the democratic party was the influence to the KKK and you proved that. So I don't understand what is your point to all of this.
Bullshit. History shows what I laid out in 557. And 467. Those links have never been refuted. Not in this thread, not in any other thread. This ain't my first rodeo on this topic Junior.
So you are illiterate.
ok, so they want to vote for republican politicians so? Are you saying they don't have a right to vote? I don't understand your point. See klansmen in the past did have democrats and republicans both. To say otherwise is just stupid.so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.
The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
History already states that the democratic party was the influence to the KKK and you proved that. So I don't understand what is your point to all of this.
The KKK was started by Southern soldiers who were pissed at black people.
Because they were Southerners, they voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
In the 1950's and 60's, the GOP came up with the Southern Strategy as a way to turn the southern conservatives from Democrat to Republican, and they were successful.
Granted, at one time the KKK may have been mostly Democrat in the late 1800's and early 1900,s but after the 50's and 60's, the KKK converted from Democrat to Republican because of the Southern Strategy.
Today? The political party of choice for those in the KKK is Republican.
ok, so they want to vote for republican politicians so? Are you saying they don't have a right to vote? I don't understand your point. See klansmen in the past did have democrats and republicans both. To say otherwise is just stupid.so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
History already states that the democratic party was the influence to the KKK and you proved that. So I don't understand what is your point to all of this.
The KKK was started by Southern soldiers who were pissed at black people.
Because they were Southerners, they voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
In the 1950's and 60's, the GOP came up with the Southern Strategy as a way to turn the southern conservatives from Democrat to Republican, and they were successful.
Granted, at one time the KKK may have been mostly Democrat in the late 1800's and early 1900,s but after the 50's and 60's, the KKK converted from Democrat to Republican because of the Southern Strategy.
Today? The political party of choice for those in the KKK is Republican.
And I'm talking those working in politics. not anymore and you can't provide a link that shows that either for either party. So let's drop this stupid ass debate that has no win for anyone.
spoken by someone who knows there are facts both ways. And yet you still deny the past. the past is the past and past was the democrats and was for a very long time. And then being in the klan and being a politician was not any longer a match. So only the dems held office as exklan members. So please, stop embarrassing yourself on here with your lack of knowledge on a historical group.ok, so they want to vote for republican politicians so? Are you saying they don't have a right to vote? I don't understand your point. See klansmen in the past did have democrats and republicans both. To say otherwise is just stupid.so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
History already states that the democratic party was the influence to the KKK and you proved that. So I don't understand what is your point to all of this.
The KKK was started by Southern soldiers who were pissed at black people.
Because they were Southerners, they voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
In the 1950's and 60's, the GOP came up with the Southern Strategy as a way to turn the southern conservatives from Democrat to Republican, and they were successful.
Granted, at one time the KKK may have been mostly Democrat in the late 1800's and early 1900,s but after the 50's and 60's, the KKK converted from Democrat to Republican because of the Southern Strategy.
Today? The political party of choice for those in the KKK is Republican.
And I'm talking those working in politics. not anymore and you can't provide a link that shows that either for either party. So let's drop this stupid ass debate that has no win for anyone.
"So let's drop this stupid ass debate that has no win for anyone"?
Spoken like someone who knows that the facts are against them.
dude, it was the entire thread. wow does the truth hurt you.so why are you saying it is republican then. WTF are you talking about.What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.
The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.
Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.
Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.
If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.
The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.
Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.
You can run but you can't hide.
The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.
WTF are YOU talking about? I never said it was "republican [sic]". I *did* say -- specifically -- that it was not affiliated with ANY political party.
Are you illiterate? Your ignorance of the word Republican indicates as much.
History already states that the democratic party was the influence to the KKK and you proved that. So I don't understand what is your point to all of this.
Bullshit. History shows what I laid out in 557. And 467. Those links have never been refuted. Not in this thread, not in any other thread. This ain't my first rodeo on this topic Junior.
So you are illiterate.
Well there's your opinion and then there's the scientific opinion of the country within a 95% chance of falling inside the margin of error. No rational person would take your opinion over odds like that.Umm... his job approval rating is higher now than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency according to Gallup.And yet, despite your empty rhetoric, Obama's successes are going to lead to Hillary's presidency.No, Bush's fuck ups brought about Obama, a socialist, race baiting, radical, divisive, America hating ideologue posing as a black man, and Obama assholery brought about Trump.So? The right is about to vote for Trump just because he's an asshole.
Meanwhile, Trump remains an asshole.
Obama's successes? Ha ha ha.
You go ahead and think that. This president has been a disaster both domestically and internationally. Might go down as one of worst in US history when the dust settles.
Posting a three month old poll to counter Obama's current job approval rating reeks of desperation and reveals how butthurt you are that his job approval is on par with Ronald Reagan, the president who many on the right regard as the best evah.Obama's Job Approval at Highest Level Since May 2013Don't be a clueless prick. Link you claim. I'm certainly not going to take the word of a certified hack. Prove it!Link what? You made a claim that you're now running away from because it's evident you don't know the answer....If you can't be bothered to link, why should I. You can't be that lazy even if you are a Democrat.Oh, really? What was it in March, 1988...? Today, Obama's is 46% according to Gallup.
You said Reagan's unfavorable rating was far lower than Obama's.
Prove it.
Obama is currently at 46%.
What was Reagan's in March, 1988? It's put up or shut up time.
Now that you've stalled as long as you can... what was Reagan's unfavorable rating at this point in his presidency?
You claimed it is "far lower."
I know what it was which is why I know you're full of shit.
I just wanted everyone else here to see that as well.
It's okay, you're delusional and like to feed your fantasies.
Obama’s job approval rating hits 43 percent, lowest in more than a year: poll
How about you? How many times did you vote for Bush? The president with the lowest job approval on record.Said the person who voted for the divisive America hating Obama....LOLOLOLOLHolyfuckingshit!Spits an unrepentant Bush voter.
The irony.
Is your claim I voted for Bush? I'm going to need a link for the proof you have of that. Remember, what you said, it's put up or shut up time. I'm waiting.
The irony.
Yet another brain-dead conservative pretending he didn't vote for Bush.
I can't say that I blame you since he was a royal fuck up of extreme magnitude.
Yet another Liberal that, when asked for proof of a claim, refuses to do so but still makes the claim.
Since you can't provide proof of YOUR claim, your claim is dismissed. Remember, YOU'RE the one that demanded proof of something claimed by another USMB poster then dismissed the claim because of no link. Typical double standard and you wonder why you're viewed as stupid motherfuckers.
As if you're man enough to dismiss me.
Your comedy routine aside, I know you voted for Bush ... probably twice cause you are that stupid. You know you voted for Bush. Hell, who doesn't know it.
I'm just reveling, for the moment, in watching you pretend like you didn't. Then I get extra entertainment, which is all you're good for, watching you pull a 180 and say you never denied voting for him when I show how I know you voted for him.
Never!you're wrong.Exactly, the KKK can belong to any Party or no Party.The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
The Klan do belong to one ideology and one ideology only, CON$ervatism!
That's funny 'cause that's exactly what many say about conservatives. Hell, just look what they've done to their own GOP. They've ripped it in half. You gotta be a special kind of retarded to shoot yourself in the foot like that going into a major election.I never denied voting for a black man. I denied your idiotic claim I did so because he's black. Evidence of that is two-fold. One, I didn't vote for him in the primary; and 2, my reason for voting for him is the same reason I always vote for the most Liberal running for president .... because they nominate Liberal judges to federal benches and in particular, the Supreme Court. Nothing about skin color or vaginas even factors into that equation.LOLOLOLOLHolyfuckingshit!
Yet another brain-dead conservative pretending he didn't vote for Bush.
I can't say that I blame you since he was a royal fuck up of extreme magnitude.
Yet another Liberal that, when asked for proof of a claim, refuses to do so but still makes the claim.
Since you can't provide proof of YOUR claim, your claim is dismissed. Remember, YOU'RE the one that demanded proof of something claimed by another USMB poster then dismissed the claim because of no link. Typical double standard and you wonder why you're viewed as stupid motherfuckers.
As if you're man enough to dismiss me.
Your comedy routine aside, I know you voted for Bush ... probably twice cause you are that stupid. You know you voted for Bush. Hell, who doesn't know it.
I'm just reveling, for the moment, in watching you pretend like you didn't. Then I get extra entertainment, which is all you're good for, watching you pull a 180 and say you never denied voting for him when I show how I know you voted for him.
If you know, prove it.
I know you voted for black skin color and twice. You know you did and don't have the guts to admit it.
Yes, you really are that stupid to claim you know better than I why I voted for Obama.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
YOU!proofCON$ervatism is a HATE religion.Liberalism is a mental disorder.
The Bush housing crash, for one.about what?36 years later the Right are still whining and blaming Carter.Seven years later, Obama and his clown followers are still whining and blaming Bush.
Oh, no! Stop!!Your dementia persists. If Obama fucked up as you delude yourself i to believing, he wouldn't have a JAR on par with Reagan after 86 months in office.Awww, poor, demented conservative. You're quite the cry baby, eh?You don't even comprehend that you projecting your homoerotic fantasies reveals far more about you than it does me, do ya, rightie?
That you think my proving you kiss his black ass as anything but proving you pucker up to it reveals you're just another stupid Liberal motherfucker. You like doing it but don't have the guts to admit it. Typical coward.
You're quite clear the typical Liberal pussy. I guess if I voted for an unqualified black as President and he fucked it up, I'd avoid admitting skin color was a motivation.
If you wanna see what a fuckup looks like, look at your guy, Bush, whose JAR was in the 20's at this point.
That's easy. The media which has turned into the propaganda arm of the Democrat party shields and protects Obama.
