The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[Steinlight]

Your article says it was in the DNC platform in 2008. So not mentioning Jerusalem as the undivided capital, doesn't mean Obama and the DNC don't necessarily believe it, they may very well have done it to be politically expedient(which is cowardly towards Iran and one of the reasons I voted for Romney). Even if they dont believe it, it doesn't make them anti-Jewish. Obama has several Jews as advisors and in top positions in the cabinet(not to mention donors). I think they are ill-informed and naive, certainly not anti-semitic. As a Jew, I have some tolerance for foreign policy stupidity, but none for anti-semitism. I would speak out against it if it were occurring.

Also, you keep harping on removing the god language. I wouldn't mind if the GOP did this either. It doesn't make one anti-christian to remove the term, secularism is not anti-christian, secularism allows for religious pluralism and inclusion, things I support. I would not stand for intolerance towards any religious group, including Christians.

As for the NAACP, they may support Democrats on the whole, but they aren't controlled by the Democratic leadership. They do as they wish. You said so yourself, they are a black and primarily liberal organization, why should they be obligated to give airtime to black conservatives? And how does this make democrats anti-black? All this shows is that regardless of color, Democrats and liberals attack people for their conservative or republican ideology. That isn't racist at all.

I think you take yourself too seriously. You are just a guy on a message board. You come off a bit weird when you talk about yourself as a "research machine" and talking about a forum as an "arena".

 

[Steinlight]

You haven't been doing your homework, stein. I dig. By dig, I dig to China and back for links and relevant information. I don't revise anything. What you see is what you get. Secularism in American society means an inherent shift away from Christianity. If it were intended to allow for a "pluralism" of religions, why the hostility towards Christians?

Democrats support women, but attack them if they are of the opposing party. They do the same with black men and women alike whom they claim to support. "How dare they buck the trend?!"

No, secularism means you are free to practice as you wish, and there should be no state religion, this was the vision of the founders. Not mentioning any religion in the DNC platform doesn't make one anti-christian anymore than it makes them anti-muslim, anti-hindu etc for not mentioning those faiths.

If anything, criticizing conservative women and conservative blacks shows they aren't racist or sexist. A racist or sexist would not criticize said groups, and instead give them a free pass. You are just showing how they are equal opportunity critics.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your article says it was in the DNC platform in 2008. So not mentioning Jerusalem as the undivided capital, doesn't mean Obama and the DNC don't necessarily believe it, they may very well have done it to be politically expedient(which is cowardly towards Iran and one of the reasons I voted for Romney). Even if they dont believe it, it doesn't make them anti-Jewish. Obama has several Jews as advisors and in top positions in the cabinet(not to mention donors). I think they are ill-informed and naive, certainly not anti-semitic. As a Jew, I have some tolerance for foreign policy stupidity, but none for anti-semitism. I would speak out against it if it were occurring.

Also, you keep harping on removing the god language. I wouldn't mind if the GOP did this either. It doesn't make one anti-christian to remove the term, secularism is not anti-christian, secularism allows for religious pluralism and inclusion, things I support. I would not stand for intolerance towards any religious group, including Christians.

As for the NAACP, they may support Democrats on the whole, but they aren't controlled by the Democratic leadership. They do as they wish. You said so yourself, they are a black and primarily liberal organization, why should they be obligated to give airtime to black conservatives. And how does this make democrats anti-black? All this shows is that regardless of color, Democrats and liberals attack people for their conservative or republican ideology. That isn't racist at all.

I think you take yourself too seriously. You are just a guy on a message board. You come off a bit weird when you talk about yourself as a "research machine" and talking about a forum as an "arena".

Yes, yes, and personal attacks will always win you the argument. Your lack of tolerance is QED, my friend, and a perfect example of my point. I run my own blog on politics and sports (statistics) thus I have to do research, to a greater extent than you would dare get caught doing. So yes, I do take myself seriously. I'd hate see what I'd be if I did otherwise.

Frankly, you don't sound like a Romney voter to me. You've spent the past 4 1/2 hours defending Democrats. It calls into question your conservative connotation when you do nothing to defend those of your own party. If you were truly independent, why such biased positions?

Oh by the way, you said the NAACP was a non-partisan group. So don't go playing switcharoo on me pal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You haven't been doing your homework, stein. I dig. By dig, I dig to China and back for links and relevant information. I don't revise anything. What you see is what you get. Secularism in American society means an inherent shift away from Christianity. If it were intended to allow for a "pluralism" of religions, why the hostility towards Christians?

Democrats support women, but attack them if they are of the opposing party. They do the same with black men and women alike whom they claim to support. "How dare they buck the trend?!"

No, secularism means you are free to practice as you wish, and there should be no state religion, this was the vision of the founders. Not mentioning any religion in the DNC platform doesn't make one anti-christian anymore than it makes them anti-muslim, anti-hindu etc for not mentioning those faiths.

If anything, criticizing conservative women and conservative blacks shows they aren't racist or sexist. A racist or sexist would not criticize said groups, and instead give them a free pass. You are just showing how they are equal opportunity critics.

If only you knew what "pluralism" really meant. A tolerance or acceptance of multiple varying views or ideas in this case, religion. Two of them are seen hostily.

Really now? How does it NOT make them racist or sexist? Why make a contention say "we support women" or "we support diversity of opinion" but then say a pro life woman or a black female republican enters the fold. That mindset goes right out the window. You make some really strange assertions, stein. Simply by acknowledging them they aren't racist or sexist? Are you kidding me with this?

 

[Steinlight]

I thought the "research machine" was going to bed and leaving the "arena", lol.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I thought the "research machine" was going to bed and leaving the "arena", lol.

I lied. So sue me. Your inconsistencies in argument are too hard not to ignore. You didn't come here to debate my thread, I had to force you into even making a position on the subject. You lied to me about Jesse Helms, then wrongly asserted the NAACP was bipartisan. You then told me the Democrats never changed their platfom when in fact they had. I've given you a plethora of examples of Democrats showing hostility to people they claim to support, but you continually deny these things, hoping to divert away from the main issue, like you did with Jesse Helms and Southern Strategy.

I've been debating politics for over three years now, it may not sound like much to you, but I've learned not to take these discussions lightly. We are two living, breathing people debating an issue. Thus I see this as a face to face (if not physically) conversation.

Now I'm going to bed.

 

[Steinlight]

You haven't been doing your homework, stein. I dig. By dig, I dig to China and back for links and relevant information. I don't revise anything. What you see is what you get. Secularism in American society means an inherent shift away from Christianity. If it were intended to allow for a "pluralism" of religions, why the hostility towards Christians?

Democrats support women, but attack them if they are of the opposing party. They do the same with black men and women alike whom they claim to support. "How dare they buck the trend?!"

No, secularism means you are free to practice as you wish, and there should be no state religion, this was the vision of the founders. Not mentioning any religion in the DNC platform doesn't make one anti-christian anymore than it makes them anti-muslim, anti-hindu etc for not mentioning those faiths.

If anything, criticizing conservative women and conservative blacks shows they aren't racist or sexist. A racist or sexist would not criticize said groups, and instead give them a free pass. You are just showing how they are equal opportunity critics.

If only you knew what "pluralism" really meant. A tolerance or acceptance of multiple varying views or ideas in this case, religion. Two of them are seen hostily.

Really now? How does it NOT make them racist or sexist? Why make a contention say "we support women" or "we support diversity of opinion" but then say a pro life woman or a black female republican enters the fold. That mindset goes right out the window. You make some really strange assetions, stein. Simply by acknowledging them they aren't racist or sexist? Are you kidding me with this?

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Interesting definition of tolerance and acceptance you got their buddy.

Generally tolerance means you allow dissenting views, doesn't mean you have to agree with them, believe it or not, you can tolerate an opinion and strongly debate the issue and attack the opinion of the other person. Tolerance doesn't mean no criticism.

 

[Steinlight]

Templar, so let me get this straight. If you advocate for the rights of black people or women, you can't ever criticize the political views of certain blacks or certain women?

 

[Steinlight]

If you don't like criticism, tough, we have a first amendment, deal with it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, secularism means you are free to practice as you wish, and there should be no state religion, this was the vision of the founders. Not mentioning any religion in the DNC platform doesn't make one anti-christian anymore than it makes them anti-muslim, anti-hindu etc for not mentioning those faiths.

If anything, criticizing conservative women and conservative blacks shows they aren't racist or sexist. A racist or sexist would not criticize said groups, and instead give them a free pass. You are just showing how they are equal opportunity critics.

If only you knew what "pluralism" really meant. A tolerance or acceptance of multiple varying views or ideas in this case, religion. Two of them are seen hostily.

Really now? How does it NOT make them racist or sexist? Why make a contention say "we support women" or "we support diversity of opinion" but then say a pro life woman or a black female republican enters the fold. That mindset goes right out the window. You make some really strange assetions, stein. Simply by acknowledging them they aren't racist or sexist? Are you kidding me with this?

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Interesting definition of tolerance and acceptance you got their buddy.

Generally tolerance means you allow dissenting views, doesn't mean you have to agree with them, believe it or not, you can tolerate an opinion and strongly debate the issue and attack the opinion of the other person. Tolerance doesn't mean no criticism.

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Where did I say that? I am tolerant of all views. I allow people to have their own views as opposed to certain liberals. Freedom of opinion is something I hold dear, whether you are a liberal or a republican or anyone else. I have risen to the defense of many liberals on this board. I am friends with blacks, liberals, gays, women and Muslims in real life.

I am calling out hypocrisy. If you can't hold that one view equally and for all without applying different versions of it to certain people, you are a hypocrite, and thus intolerant. That's it, that's all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you don't like criticism, tough, we have a first amendment, deal with it.

Oh dear. I never said anything of the sort. Add mischaracterization to the list. If you don't like losing arguments, tough, refine your position and deal with it. Okay? No need to be a bad sport.

 

[Steinlight]

If only you knew what "pluralism" really meant. A tolerance or acceptance of multiple varying views or ideas in this case, religion. Two of them are seen hostily.

Really now? How does it NOT make them racist or sexist? Why make a contention say "we support women" or "we support diversity of opinion" but then say a pro life woman or a black female republican enters the fold. That mindset goes right out the window. You make some really strange assetions, stein. Simply by acknowledging them they aren't racist or sexist? Are you kidding me with this?

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Interesting definition of tolerance and acceptance you got their buddy.

Generally tolerance means you allow dissenting views, doesn't mean you have to agree with them, believe it or not, you can tolerate an opinion and strongly debate the issue and attack the opinion of the other person. Tolerance doesn't mean no criticism.

So you are only tolerant if you support conservative views? I got ya.

Where did I say that? I am tolerant of all views. I allow people to have their own views as opposed to certain liberals. Freedom of opinion is something I hold dear, whether you are a liberal or a republican or anyone else. I have risen to the defense of many liberals on this board. I am friends with blacks, liberals, gays, women and Muslims in real life.

I am calling out hypocrisy. If you can't hold that one view equally and for all without applying different versions of it to certain people, you are a hypocrite, and thus intolerant. That's it, that's all.

How am I a hypocrite? First off, I am not a liberal. So you initial contention of liberal "hypocrisy" doesn't apply to me. I just can't stand politically correct bellyachers like yourself.

By your own definition, liberals aren't hypocrites, they criticize conservatives whether they are black or white, male or female, gay or straight.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar, so let me get this straight. If you advocate for the rights of black people or women, you can't ever criticize the political views of certain blacks or certain women?

Believe it or not, I support the equal treatment of homosexuals under the constitution. Same with blacks, and women. I don't know how you came up with that, but it's clear you're reaching for other points.

Scenario 1:

Liberal A says: "Black People should be treated equally, fairly and protected from racism!"

Black Republican B says: "I agree! Black folks shouldn't live in poverty, they should be able to find jobs and get rich!"

Liberal A says: "You're a traitor to your party and to your race! How can you be a Republican?! You... you UNCLE TOM!"


Scenario 2:

Liberal Woman A says: "I want women to be treated with respect and fairness!"

Republican Woman B says: "Yes, that would be great! Would that apply to me if I am pro-life?"

Liberal Woman A replies: "No. How can you be against women's rights? You're a whore."


Scenario 3:

Liberal A says: "I support religious diversity and tolerance! People should be able to believe and worship what they want!"

Christian Conservative B replies: "I am a Christian, I don't believe in gay marriage and I think abortion is wrong."

Liberal A says: "Why is your faith so mean and intolerant to gays and women?"


If this doesn't illustrate my point, I don't know what would short of a pop up picturebook would.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I doubt you have many friends in real life, considering how much time you spend in the "arena" and being a "research machine".

I don't neg newbs, but you my friend just crossed a line. Negged. This discussion is now over.

"newbs", lol. You aren't helping your case bud.

I just got a positive rep for the post you negged. Apparently, people agree, you are a blowhard with too much time on your hands.

"People" implies more than one person repped you. I have all ideas who she was.

If I must go into detail:

I have two gay friends. One I worked with at the University of Georgia, and another who lives in the Toronto area. He also happens to be Muslim. I was raised by a single mother with help from other women. No male influences in my life until my 16th birthday. I have plenty of female friends, one I know from childhood in fact. I watched one of them grow up before my very eyes. I have 10 or so black friends I know from as far back as middle school, two of them attend my church. Another friend of mine is Egyptian by birth.

Tolerance? Yeah, I've got that down pat. Don't you dare attack my friends, not ever. It speaks to your intellectual sincerity when you attack people's friends and not their arguments. How utterly cheap and vile of you.

 

[Steinlight]

You could have used a male influence. You need a backbone, way too sensitive.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You could have used a male influence. You need a backbone, way too sensitive.

This argument is broken from the get-go, but trust TK to carry it all night and half of the next day.

Finally, you speak. And what do you have to say? "This argument is broken from the getgo" without even so much as a shred of refutatory evidence.

Take your butt buddy with you while you're at it.

 

[Esmeralda]

Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved. But hey, that's not the point of this thread. Think about it for a moment. Which party is more tolerant? Who is the least tolerant? For as long as I can remember tolerance has been an issue in America. One party in particular purports to be the champions of tolerance. It claims the other party is racist, bigoted, misogynistic and generally intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

As I am about to demonstrate, I will take apart these assumptions. One by one.

Before I begin, let me say that intolerance exists on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is immune from it. Nobody. But as I see it, I see such intolerance pervading from the left at increasing amounts than the right's.

First, lets address the Democratic claim that they support women's rights, women altogether and are non sexist. They tried to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Paycheck Fairness act despite an existing law passed in 1963 to address the issue. They support a woman's unfettered right to abortive care and contraception. However if a woman from the opposing party dares to buck this trend, this is the result:

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

Libtalker Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham's 'A Slut' - YouTube

2) Bill Maher refers to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as "Boobs":

Bill Maher "It's Not Because they have Breast; it's because..." - YouTube

3) Black Tea Partier Mia Love reacts to Liberal Racism and misogyny after her appearance at the RNC in 2012:

Black Tea Party Conservative Mia Love Reacts to Democrats Racist Attacks After RNC Appearance - YouTube

4) Bill Maher attacks Sarah Palin's son:

Bill Maher Appeals to His Lower-Intellect Audience: Attacks Sarah Palin's Son Trig - YouTube

------------------------------------------------------------------

On race, they claim to be for the black citizen, except if you are Mia Love, Allen West, Deneen Borelli, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Stacey Dash or a black Republican in general. Should a black person defect to the other side, this is the result:

Twitter Explodes After Actress Stacy Dash Endorses Mitt Romney As 'The Only Hope For Your Future'

Actress Stacey Dash, who has starred in everything from the 90′s hit Clueless to CSI, prompted a firestorm on Twitter after publicly endorsing Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and then standing by her opinion.

“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney,” Dash wrote on her official Twitter page, accompanied by a photo of herself with an American flag.

Not long after, presumed Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, several even asking if the actress would just “kill herself.”

One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

Twitter Explodes After Black Actress Endorses Romney as the ?Only Choice for Your Future? | TheBlaze.com

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent

The Wikipedia entry for GOP House candidate Mia Love was edited to include racist, misogynistic slurs after her rousing convention speech Tuesday night, Twitchy reported.

Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, happens to be a black female.

After the Wikipedia entry was defaced, it called Love a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent - National Elections | Examiner.com

------------------------------------------------------------------

As for homosexuals, and the aspect of bigotry, President Barack Obama showed no real concern for the hopes and feelings of the gay community by repeatedly shifting his stances on gay marriage from 1996 until the first term leading up to his re-election campaign. To put it mildly, they were used as pawns for his political agenda:

Full circle

Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.

In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicago’s Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of Outlines, dug up a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elect’s shift.

He had written on the 1996 questionnaire, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Just two years later, on another Outlines questionnaire, Obama wasn’t so sure. Did he favor legalizing same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he co-sponsor it? "Undecided."

Later years offered greater clarity — and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.

As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..."

He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.

"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."

When he wrote his 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, he offered a religious explanation for his definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But he left the door open for yet another shift.

"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …" he said. "(But) it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

He said his doubts didn't make him a bad Christian — but human, limited in his understanding of God’s purpose and therefore "prone to sin."

"When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must continually be open to new revelations — whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion."

Still, in a 2007 Democratic primary debate sponsored by a gay rights group and a gay-oriented cable TV channel, he spoke instead about his support for civil unions with "all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage" — but not for legal recognition of "marriage" between same-sex couples. It should be up to religious denominations to determine whether they wanted to recognize that as marriage or not, he said.

In August 2008, he told Southern California megachurch Pastor Rick Warren his definition of marriage: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

He later added: "I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."

In November 2008, he said much the same thing to a rather different audience: MTV.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage | PolitiFact

----------------------------------------------

As for their tolerance for people of faith, they were seen striking the word "God" from their platform in 2012 during their convention in Charlotte. They did later revise their platform to return those words to the platform, not 24 hours later:

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ‘God-Given’ From Platform

CHARLOTTE — For Democrats, there is no God in 2012 — at least as far as the party’s platform is concerned.

Nor is there a Jerusalem.

Democrats removed those two words, and the passages surrounding them, from the 2012 party platform as it was released this week.

In Charlotte on Monday, the Democratic National Committee released its 2012 party platform after the DNC Platform Committee approved it under the leadership of Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker. The Platform Drafting Committee, led by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, gathered feedback for an initial draft in Minneapolis over the summer.

Gone are three sentences identifying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, now and forever. There is no mention of Jerusalem in the 2012 document, after the 2008 version included this mention:

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Also gone is this reference to Hamas:

The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.

President Obama has publicly endorsed a two-state solution for Israel. Disagreements between his administration and Israel have at times become public, as the president has opposed new settlement construction, and the Jewish state’s more hawkish supporters have relentlessly criticized him for his handling of U.S./Israeli relations.

“The Obama Administration has followed the same policy towards Jerusalem that previous U.S. Administrations of both parties have done since 1967,” a DNC spokeswoman said of the change in platform language. “As the White House said several months ago, the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians – which we also said in the 2008 platform. We will continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue as part of a two state solution that secures the future of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.”

Also gone is a previous reference to “God.”

The Democratic Party’s 2008 platform mentioned “God” once, in this passage (emphasis added):

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

Explaining the removal, a Democratic official explained: “The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times (one is a quote); and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ?God-Given? From Platform - ABC News

So are they the party of tolerance? That is for you the reader to decide.

My god, your entire view of life is based on talk shows, pundits, internet blogs, television, etc. Get out of the basement. Read a serious newspaper once in a while. Read a serious magazine. Talk to real people. Read some books. Get an education. Grow up.

 

[mudwhistle]

Conservatives spend so much time pretending to be what they're not it's no wonder they can't ever remember who they really are in the first place.

Actually, you on the left spend so much time hating everything these caricatures that you've invented that you've forgotten what they really are.

Seems to me the pretenders are the folks you repeatedly vote for. Obama tried to sound like Reagan during the SOTU address.

You folks forget who was responsible for freeing the slaves and who do you think championed civil rights. You also forget who stood in the way of both. Democrats.

Democrats decided in 2012 they would assign racial or sexist connotations to everything Mitt Romney said. Thus surfaced the binders scandal.

So the Tea Party is full of terrorists/racists but Iran is our friends? Your lives are full of utter fantasies. You are totally out of touch with reality, and you drag everyone around you into this upside down world. You need this mess because without it you'd have to face the fact that the people you vote for can't do anything right. They screw everything up so bad that it seems like they're doing it on purpose. Then they dream up ways to blame it all on Bush, or the Tea Party, or a video, or whomever is the current strawman. But this is simply the product of people who vote with emotion rather than logic.

The GOP has plenty of lousy leaders, but they don't even come close to the screwups in the Democrat party. Not by half. When we discover that our guy sucks ass we get rid of him. You instead embrace him or her and make up excuses for them. This is why the Democrat Party is such a disaster these days. Your party has taken corruption to 3rd world levels. This is the transformation Obama promised and not for the better.

 

[BDBoop]

The rudeness was on another thread. Sorry if I failed to mention that.

No, I know. I saw it. He's brand-new, and I like his style, so I checked out his other posts.

I respect your opinion.

And I yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe in 2014 African Americans will vote 95% GOP

Maybe tonight you can address my thread with an actual argument.

Why does your OP admit that both sides do it, then you only attempt to provide examples of one side?