The Second Amendment only protects the right to hunt and target shoot.
The only possible reason for someone to disagree with the POTUS is because they are racist.
If you are a Republucan then you hate women.
People can only be successful because of the government.
It's all Bush's fault.

How about these myths?? They are all persistent, persuasive & unrealistic. They were also around before the birther thing (who still talks about that anyway??) and will be around for at least the next 4 years.

=======================

 

It took over 24 years to get rid of the mess that Coolidge made (Hoover didn't help at all), and a major all out war where the industrial base of most of the rest of the world was destroyed and ours kept in tact. 

Bush not only screwed up this country at least as bad as Coolidge did, he also screwed up much of the rest of the world. ie: no more balance of power between Iran and Iraq.

I am of the opinion that you and I will be dead and gone before the mess that Bush left is finally set right.  I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am afraid that I am correct.

The rest of your "myths" are just nonsense from Fox, the propaganda channel, and have no place in the world of reality.

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt." ~ unknown

Here is another "quote of the day" that I like from Yesterday -

“There are some people in politics and in the press who can’t be confused by the facts,” . “They just will not live in an evidence-based world."  Hillary Clinton

Damm she'll make a great president !

The rest of your "myths" are just nonsense from Fox, the propaganda channel, and have no place in the world of reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, the being successful myth came straight from POTUS. The others all came from MSNBC, HuffPo, NBC, in particular and the DNC talking heads.

Duke please provide a link to these supposed statements made. I ran a search and all I came up with was right wing blogs and Fox news claiming that is what democrats and liberal think/say.

 

However I agree with Seeweed. Bush is at fault. Not totally, but his administration took a huge toll on America and we will not see the end of it for a very long time. Many of us tried to point it out then and were told we were just being unpatriotic for speaking out against the President.

 

Jank,
Not defending Bush but Dems were in charge when we went over the cliff, so it sure wasn't all him. Also, your Google Foo is slipping. It took me all of 60 seconds to find these:

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs...p-want-let-women-die

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...women-and-hispanics/

Both links to "page not found". 

But, going over the cliff, as it so happened , has not occurred yet. March 1 (I believe) 

That being said, this Democrat actually hopes the House actually does nothing and we DO go over the "cliff". 

Personally, I think we would be better off to start with a blank slate , especially on the Offence (they refer to it as the "Defense") budget. 

Sorry 'bout that Seeweed! My iPhone acts up sometimes,

especially while watching a great Superbowl comeback!

I also see that going over and starting fresh may not be a bad idea.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/m...p-want-let-women-die

 

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...women-and-hispanics/

No problem on the links

I can't speak for others in the Democratic party, and I don't usually watch any of the political stuff on any of the cable news places, with the exception of Rachel Maddow whenever I'm sitting around while she is on.  "I don't often watch Fox News , but when I do I see it on the Today Show"

Having said that I will address each of those statements you made, and try to give you my perspective on those points and attempt to explain why I said what I said.

> Guns only for hunting -   Well I have no idea where that statement came from, and it is definatly not the way any Democrat I know thinks about that issue. However, speaking only for ME, after study of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment , and some knowledge of the history of the Revolution , and the War of 1812, it is evident to me that an armed militia was as important to the early government as was the standing regular army. I (personaolly) believe the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or self defense, but is there for the need of a militia unit , which when activated under the power given to the president in Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, was to be used for the defense of the new nation. On the other hand, I am glad the SCOTUS disagrees with me on the matter as I am a gun owner and have a carry permit and I often carry whenever I think I may be in some danger. 

>the only reason someone will disagree with Obama is racism - You are probably correct, in that most Democrats do hold that suspession , but there is a huge amount of evidence that most Republicans actually have a personal hatred of him. There is quite a bit of legislation that Republicans have voted against, and yet, it was things they themselves wrote, but once they found Obama liked it, they voted against it. The Joe Wilson "you lie" shoutout, was nothing more than an overt show of disrespect to the person (and the office), I believe in a fare and honest hearing , most of us could make a case that the Republican opposition is opposed to Obama, not most of the things he has tried to do , and that leaves the question - unless it is that they just can't get over the race thing, then WHY ?

On a personal note, one of my neighbors down in LA , hates Obama. He told me that he had always in his live voted for Democrats until they ran that "damm N****, and that he had supported Hillary until she "kissed that N*****'s ass, and went on and on with no substance , only race. 

It is very easy for us to believe that a lot of the opposition to Obama is racially motivated. I'm just living with it, and if that is not the case for you , good for you, but you need to live with the fact that most of us do believe that. 

> R's war on women .  It is indisputable that the current bunch of R's running the House have written and passed a lot of legislation aimed at limiting the rights of women. They have de-funded Planned Parenthood which was the sole provider of female health services for a very large percentage of women in this country, especially the poorer ones., who will no longer be able to get early cancer detection, and general female "tune ups" 

More recently some Republican candidates have said (in so many words) that there is seldom such thing as rape, women can't get pregnant from rape, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant it is a gift from God.  Even one of their rising stars, Bobby Gindel , has come out rebuking his fellow Republicans to not take such "stupid" stands. There are even a growing number (like Huckabee, and a lot more, even Romney addmitted to it) who are pushing for a "Personhood Amendment" to the Constitution (of all things) which would even limit, if not eliminate birth control pills by making them illegal.

We don't believe Republicans hate women, but there is much evidence to believe that the Republicans as a party are waging a war on women's rights.  I guess you can take that anyway you want, we see it for what it is. 

> you can only be successful with Government help -  I don't recall that statement, but I do recall a statement he made that Fox took out of context which was something like "you didn' t build that (business) implying you had government help.  Well, if you listen to what he actually said in context, I personally believe he was right., We Democrats believe that we are all in this together, we are not lone wolves. If you have a business, you don't build the power station that provides you electricity, you don't build the roads that gets the traffic to come to your business, you didn't wake up one morning with a complete education , just "knowing" how to read, write and do 'rithmitic. So, that out of context sound bite is an incorrect statement, but taken in context of the entirety of the total statement (which is different than a sound bite), I think he was point on - at some time you had a parent or teacher who inspired you , you were taught your "R's " , you had protection of the armed forces to give you peace at a national level, and the security of local law enforcement to help insure your business was not robbed, and your customers killed on a regular basis. You have roads, sewer, power, water, and a host of other things we all too often take for graned today, that we wouldn't have if not for a government . You have the ability to eat at a restaurant without fear becuse some government agency has inspected it for cleanness, you can eat food because a government ageny has inspected it to not make you sick. Your dad or grandad and g mother have a decent retirement helped by Social Security so you don't have to  support them, and they have Medicare so that their doctor bills will not be a burden to you . 

No man is an island, we all need each other. That was what Obama was saying. If you don't believe that, I think you are mislead, and need to reevaluate your thinking.

> It's all Bush's fault > Well, I've already commented on that and yes, it is.

I agree with everything Seeweed said.

 

The two links you provided for me Duke was right wing news orgs. I am not saying they have no validity, but they seem to take certain news media personalities and assume that all democrats hold the same view. They don't.

 

However, the last one about what the Republican congress has been doing to turn back the clock on womens health rights is spot on. I don't believe that all Republicans "hate" women, but the ones in congress sure are trying to set us back several decades with their legislation. In the Blaze article the Senators were saying that the Republicans in congress were bringing up legislation to strip womens rights at a time when they needed to be focused on the economy. I agree. All the comments (as seeweed spoke about) saying that rape was only real if he women didn't get pregnant. Or the pregnancy from rape was a gift from God, is a slap in the face of women. Are we to be treated as vessels to carry babies? We have rights, and want to be free to make these decisions our selves. We deserve these rights. Why do you think so many Republican congressmen are pushing these bills to take rights away from women? Why do you think they want to make it more difficult for women to obtain birth control? Why do they lie and say that the morning after pill is a form of abortion? What is their agenda? I am sincerely asking and not being sarcastic. As a woman it sure feels like they have very little respect for womens rights.

My favorite Hillary Clinton quote...

" We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  6/26/04

Good president my ass

___________________________________________________________________

If course you agree with seeweed. You’re both die hard liberals that continue to think (incorrectly) Bush is the reason for all the world’s problems.

 

Seeweed is too dumb to know better but you should be able to figure it out.

 

Republican opposition is opposed to Obama, not most of the things he has tried to do , and that leaves the question - unless it is that they just can't get over the race thing, then WHY ?

On a personal note, one of my neighbors down in LA , hates Obama. He told me that he had always in his live voted for Democrats until they ran that "damm N****, and that he had supported Hillary until she "kissed that N*****'s ass, and went on and on with no substance , only race.

 

If the guy you are citing always voted Democrat then he was a democrat and has nothing to do with why most Republicans I know did not vote for him.

Jobe: I think Seeweed and Jank are actually very reasonable and I appreciate their perspectives even though I may disagree. In particular I appreciate how they make a point instead of making personal insults!

 

Jank: Problem is there are no less than 5 left leaning news outlets to 1 conservative so of course the effect of anything that is said on FOX is going to be magnified. Believe it or not I watch just as much FOX as I do the others, except MSNBC because I think they have become completely unhinged and they are very open about their partisanship.

 

 

I'll agree with you about Jank on that but not seeweed.

All you hear is "you don't like him cause he's black, squawk squawk"-but they can never or will never, answer the question-why would a republican vote for a democrat, no matter their color/sex? This is how deranged the democratic party is, they have no argument except that tired worn out race card they toss. Well fine, if you think tossing that card "explains" why republicans don't like obama, explain why we don't like almost ALL democrats. This is why the country has two parties, to give everyone a voice. Oh I know how democrats hate for people to have opposing views, but that's the truth of the matter, two parties, nothing to do with race at all. There are black republicans, I guess they oppose obama because he's half black?? Or is it just what the democrats call them, they're oreos, uncle toms and aunt jemimas, sell outs, or working against their own race? Yeah, I know, it's OK for democrats to be racists, and one example is that they have the biggest racist in the country sitting in the oval office.

Figure what out Jobe? I appreciate you not thinking I'm an idiot, but I disagree that what seeweed said was unintelligent, or not thought out.

 

Can you give me a logical reason why many Republican congressman are working so hard to pass legislation to strip women of personal rights? What do you think their agenda is?

 

As for Bush. I don't lay all the blame at his feet, but as President his policies of cutting taxes and deregulation, 2 unpaid for wars, medicare drug plan with no way to pay for it, allowing price gouging by big oil, was the straw that broke the camels back. We are still paying for these idiotic decisions made by his administration. In his first term he had both houses of congress.  His spending was out of control. You can't spend a lot of money and cut your revenue and not expect to go in the hole.

 

I just shake my head when I see Republicans freaking out about our deficit and blaming it on President Obama. I remember hearing some Republicans say on the very first day President Obama took office.."it's his problem now and you can't blame Bush with anymore" To me that is childish and dishonest. In order to fix the mess we were in we had to acknowledge what got us there.

 

The amount President Obama and his administration has added is far less than that of Bush. We are still paying for Bush's economic decisions. When President Obama stood firm last month and won the reversal of the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy I was relieved to finally see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel. I would love to see even more spending cuts with added revenue. We have to start paying down our debt, and that is the only way I know of doing that.

 

I am not 100% happy about some of the decisions President Obama's administration has made either. What I can see is that things are better and we are moving in the right direction now. There is a lot more work to be done and I sincerely hope that both parties stop arguing and get to work on dealing with our debt.

 

As for the racism in the Republican party....It's hard to talk about without people getting defensive. I don't think every Republican is racist. I would never paint everyone in the Republican party with that broad brush. I have friends that are Republican that hate racism as much as I do. Having said that, I have to add that there are those in the Republican party that are flat out racists. I see it all the time. Read comments at the bottom of news stories related to the President. Watch the video that Crash posted in another thread here of the Senator from Arkansas. To me the Republican party doesn't do enough to stamp out the racist language amongst their peers. Some Republican leaders that are not racist seem to turn a deaf ear to it because they want the votes of those backwards idiots regardless of their hate speech. I can't respect that. I believe the Republicans could turn their party around, while still keeping their conservative ideals, by standing up and pushing out those that are trying to divide this country along the race line and those that oppose womens equal rights. Heck if they would stop talking about religion so much and actually standup and say that all racism is wrong and will not be tolerated I might even vote Republican again one day.

 

So long as Dems stop trying to constantly gin up racism where it doen't exist and end the whole "GOP code for you know what" thing.

What is "GOP for you know what"?

 

I do see some cases where people say its racism when its not. I don't believe that calling President Obama a liar is an indication of the congressman being racist. I think he is probably just a rude and ill mannered man. However, the racism that is growing in the Republican party can't be ignored either. Nor should it be denied. It's there and its ugly.

 

Duke, surely you aren't saying there is not a racist element to many that oppose the President?

There's no doubt that for some it is an issue, unfortunately. But the race card has been so ridiculously overused, primarily to shut down any sort of counter argument. When "golf" and "Chicago" have been thrown out there as coded rallying cries for masses of unidentified seething racists then one has to wonder where honest defense of diversity ends and sheer political opportunism begins.

===============

The only ones I saw that seemed upset about his being "black" were the democrats. Republicans weren't going to vote for the democratic candidate to begin with, especially a never did anything, unqualified, no reason to even be on the ballot democrat, no matter their color-but oh my, all the racist democrats all of a sudden had to either not vote, vote republican, or vote for, gasp, a black man. I'm sure some of them took comfort in the fact that at least he was half white and they voted for "that part". That way they could still be the racists that they are, but not look so much like it. Perfect "out" for them.

 

 

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise; When he shutteth his lips, he is esteemed as prudent. Proverbs 17:28

________________________

 

I seriously don't know what you are talking about with the "golf" and "Chicago" references. I agree that there are some that have used the race card needlessly, but the racism that is growing again in this country, or maybe just rearing its ugly head again, can't be denied.

 

Those like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson love every minute of it and I can't stand to hear either one of them speak. However, they have a whole lot of material these days to use in their speeches. Republicans such as Jason Rapart, and John Hubbard make it too easy for them.

 

I have to run out and do some errands, but I would love to continue this discussion later Duke. You are one of the few Republicans on the forums that I can have these discussions with and it not get ugly.

=================

That "shoutout" was indicative of something one might do to a person whom they thought was of a lower social order , and was done as an insult. 

I was raised down here, I know the "signs" and hear the dog whistle   I'm like the gingerbread man on this, "Can't fool me".

 

And all this birther thing. If Obama had been a member of the old white man's fraturnity , is there anyone out there who thinks that would have even gotten a second thought ? Why NO ! it is , and always was, an attempt to paint Obama as one of "them" and not one of "us". Like I said, I'm born and raised here, I know who "them" and "us" refers to. If you don't , consider your rearing.

__________________________

 

Best, one of the reasons I liked Obama was because he was not part of the "old guard". It's one of the things that I believe is wrong with our government. We need new blood in DC. We need fresh ideas and elected officials that have not been jaded and bought out by corporations. Another reason I think citizens united needs to be revisited by our SCOTUS.

 

really? do you live in alabama? because, at least once a day, i heard someone say "i can't vote for that N****R!"  and exactly what percentage of the people in this state are "democrats"?

________________

 

Seeweed, I hear what your saying, and I can't say for sure that the shout out didn't come from a place of racism. I also can't say for sure it did. As I said the congressman (I can't even remember his name ) could just be a rude and ill mannered man. However, as you said, coming from the south we have seen this type of disrespectful, talking down to attitude, towards minorities all our lives.

 

I completely agree with what you say about the Birthers. As you said if he were a white man there would have never been a question of his citizenship. Even in the face of evidence provided many still continue to call President Obama "The Kenyan"

 

President Obama is our first black president and I guess we all knew that there would be this element of society that would be outraged that a black man would be leading our country. I know some people that will not see a black doctor. Racism is still deeply rooted in our country. Anyone that denies it is not being honest. To say that our first black president has not been opposed by many based solely on his race is also disingenuous. Its there and its real. Yet, I am just as sickened by those that over play the race card. There is really no need to do that. It shouldn't be ignored or brushed aside, but it also doesn't need to be exaggerated either.

 

I worked at my sisters restuarant last year helping her out after she lost her day time bartender. I filled in for a while and listened to the people who came and sat around the bar. Every single day without fail I heard someone refer to our President as a N****r. One day in particular a couple of men sat at the bar for a couple of hours drinking beer and talking politics. Even though I had gotten used to hearing racist comments about the president these guys were the worst. They were even laughing about and hoping he would be lynched on the White House lawn.  I eventually told them they had to leave. I wasn't sure how my sister was going to react to me running off her customers but I just couldn't take another second of hearing their hatefilled, ignorant comments. Of course they called me a n****r lover and every other racist thing they could think of before they left. When the drama was over a couple that had been sitting near them thanked me for putting a stop to it and asking them to leave. I told them that I heard people talking about the President in those terms all the time just not that extreme. They told me they voted Republican and didn't like President Obama, but it had nothing to do with his race. I know that there are many Republicans that feel that way, but what bothered me was that they didn't speak up themselves they had been talking to these two men at one point about politics yet when the two men started using racist language the couple didn't have the guts to tell them it was wrong. That is part of the problem with the Republican party, they know they have a large number of racist in their midst yet they refuse to address the issue head on.

 

Anybody that was some form of an adult when Nixon was president should know that the modern Republican party was built in the South on racism. Nixon was pretty open about exploiting Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act  and his (Nixon's) Southern Strategy was to pit the Whites in the South against the Blacks as he reasoned that there were not enough Blacks voting in the South to make much difference. 

So, yes, the Republican party is basically racist at it's origin since the late 60's.

Your entire premise is flat out wrong!!

 

Do you not recall the Democrats in the mid 60's staging a mind numbing filibuster (led by prominent southern senators) trying to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from passing (after previously  filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957), only to be broken by a Republican Senator (Dirksen)?? Do you not recall the 21 prominent southern Democrats in the Senate who opposed the final bill? Do you not recall that only 40% of Dems supported the CRA '64 as opposed to over 80% of Republicans???

 

see: http://www.congresslink.org/pr...ivilrights64text.htm

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

 

And you seriously think (according to your theory) that the Republican party is at its core the racist party???

. If Obama had been a member of the old white man's fraturnity , is there anyone out there who thinks that would have even gotten a second thought ?

Not sure what "second thought" you mean. He certainly didn't get a second or even a first thought from me or any republican I know. I had never heard of him, and when I did find out who he was, a never did anything, unqualified community organizer, I wondered too why he was picked, but that became clear when the democrats whipped out the old race card and put it in action. Again, the upset people I heard yapping were the democrats-members of the local old white men's democratic fraternity- wondering why their party-the democrats couldn't find someone besides that ******.

______________________

 

Just as the Democratic party changed position on civil rights the Republican party saw a chance to gain voters from the south who had traditionally voted Democratic. Basically the Republicans started courting racist whites of the south. That is what the southern strategy was based on Duke.

 

Wiki does a good job of laying it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Jank,

I trust what you're saying but Wiki is not exactly a valid refence. Regardless, if I'm wrong then I stand corrected!

I would say that you both are right with respect to the parties and the historical time frames.

 

Jank has pointed out the turning point, which Seeweed stated earlier. 1970 and Nixon.

 

Some say that before the turning point that was why most southerners were democrats. 

 

The wiki article does a fairly good job. While I agree that wiki is not yet a "valid" reference it has come a long way since its inception.

Actually it would be the opposite Duke. The Republicans USED to be more pro-civil rights. The modern Republican party is made up of a lot of former Democrats that left the Dem party when it shifted towards support of civil rights. That is when Nixon implemented the southern strategy which took those disenfranchised southern democrats into the Republican fold.  Personally I think the party poisoned itself by doing so. That is why I said that if you started seeing more Republican politicians calling their peers out for using racist language they would see a shift back to a majority support. I know plenty of Democrats that are centrist, and would probably consider voting Republican if not for the religious agenda and racism within the party. I am not saying you or many other Republicans are those things at all. I want to be clear about that. However, it remains true that the modern Republican party is still riding out the southern strategy to their own demise.

 

I am so bad to start a reply and then get up, go to the kitchen, pet the dog, then return and finish my reply. By that time things have changed. LOL

 

You had posted something about Democrats and eugenics Duke and that is the post I replied to.

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

Remind me if I ever decide to run for office to employ you as my campaign manager............

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

You did have me scratching my head there. I finally realized you were "continuing"............

 

You "taxed" my pea brain. Don't do that again.......

Ubu, Duke had posted a message that I guess he rethought and deleted. My response that started with "Actually it would be the opposite Duke" pertained to that post. By the time I messed around and got back to my response to his original message and then posted it, he had deleted that post, so mine seemed disjointed. LOL

 

I have rethought post and deleted them many times. I had no idea the confusion that might cause. Duke, I think we just blew Ubu's mind! hahahahaha