Republican controlled house says.."DEFUND Obamacare, or we're SHUTTING the GOVT. DOWN "

[Dog Wonder]

Need to come up with a different, lame reply. This one is getting old !

As old as one-line replies about one-liners?

 

[Ms Tree]

Invalidate? Not at all. It does help explain some of the thinking behind the document such as the 3/5 rule, the fact that women were not given suffrage and that you have to be a property owner in order to participate in government? Predominately white? That's funny that you cannot even bring your self to say it. Predom

 

[Ms Tree]

Invalidate? Not at all. It does help explain some of the thinking behind the document such as the 3/5 rule, the fact that women were not given suffrage and that you have to be a property owner in order to participate in government? Predominately white? That's funny that you cannot even bring your self to say it. Predominately means too have a controlling number and that there are others of smaller numbers. You and I both know that this is a false statement on it's face because there were not founders who were no male property owners. So go ahead and say it. The founders were all white male property owners.

I fail to see why the war was a farce merely due to the fact that they were segregated and the fact that owning humans was seen as OK. It is merely a reflection of the times that they lived in and it took well over 100 years to correct their short sighted and biased outlook.

Seems like you are mixing up your nouns and adjectives. No one is disputing that the founders or the 8 on the panel in the picture are not duly elected representatives (noun) of their districts. I am referring to them not being representative (adj) of the group, in this case the US as a whole. They very well be representative of the RNC or the image that the RNC wishes to display. Looking at the demographic turn out for the last elections I would say that is a definite possibility.

You are really going to use the last two centuries as your bench mark? Women only got the right to vote less than 100 years ago. While slavery was abolished in 1865 it is not as if blacks were freely allowed to vote. Things like lynchings, intimidation,and taxes tended to stifle that Constitutional right. That is kind of why they passed the the Voting Rights act in 1965. So yes, from the signing of the COTUS till 1920's white males were the majority of the voters because they were pretty much the only ones who could vote. Even though women did get the right to vote, the vote was not often exercised due to various reasons. Blacks did not get to vote freely will after 1965. So yes, given that the majority of the voters have been white it does stand to reason that they would vote for someone who like them. The DNC is less so as I already pointed out to you earlier. The DNC is by no means representative (adj) of the US population but it is far more so than the RNC.

I do not vote based on gender, race or religion. I vote on what I think is less worse for the country as a whole placing my self interest secondary. The problem is that when you look at the GOP you guys seem to have a hard time finding women who are intelligent and well spoken (Palin) or minorities who are intelligent and well spoken (Cain) so you go with white males who strike a cord with the white base (Bush, McCain, Cain) instead of finding a Rubio or Hutchinson. So it does limit your voting choices.

No hypocritical at all. I believe government should represent (Adj) society as a whole. When it does not, I believe bias is present. I think it is an ignorant argument to say that both parties are not capable of finding intelligent, well spoken people who are not white males to represent us. Countries all over the world have managed to do it. We finally did it in 2008.

As for the GOP it may be a chicken or egg thing. I do not know if the GOP base just does not like minorities and women or if the leadership does not look for people out side the narrow parameters. The people do not seem to demand it. I am sure you are not arguing that minorities and women are not as capable as white males. So if that is the case, why are the powers that be not being more proactive in their search and support?

Continuing on the current path will just create more photo opportunities such as the one above to show how inclusive the RNC/GOP really is.

 

[eolesen]

Again, you want to make it about race and plumbing. And you call conservatives the ones looking at narrow parameters?...

 

[Dog Wonder]

Again the White male wants to play the victim.

 

[Ms Tree]

Again, you want to make it about race and plumbing. And you call conservatives the ones looking at narrow parameters?...

You can try and ignore the reality a you want. The simple fact remains that the GOP is less redlective of society as a whole tban the DNC is. Looking at the country is not a narrow parameter. Choosing only a certain type of person to represent is a narrow parameter. To argue that those that are chosen are the best that we have is not only 'narrow' but ignorant.

 

[delldude]

Again the White male wants to play the victim.

Learned it from the dems.

 

[Ms Tree]

Again, you want to make it about race and plumbing. And you call conservatives the ones looking at narrow parameters?...

This is what the republicans narrrow parameters look like to the public.

Look, you got one black male to talk about womens reproductive rights. I guess that's a step in the right direction.

 

[eolesen]

Reality?

Are you suggesting that angry white men are the only people voting?

That angry white men are the only ones interested in participating in the process of nominating candidates?

Please, do tell me how all these angry white men keep getting elected, especially in areas where whites aren't the majority?

 

[delldude]

I think I need a meeting, anyone know where I get some support?

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party

By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi - assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page 186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150 persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly with black customers.“

Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/
​

​

 

[Ms Tree]

Reality?

Are you suggesting that angry white men are the only people voting?

That angry white men are the only ones interested in participating in the process of nominating candidates?

Please, do tell me how all these angry white men keep getting elected, especially in areas where whites aren't the majority?

Said nothign about angy. Are there alternatives on the GOP tickets? We vote for whats on the ballot. The GOP puts primarily white males on the ballot. The DNC has more alternatives (look at who's in office) than the GOP does. It's an indisputible fact that there are more minorities and women in Dem possitions than in the GOP so far as Congress is concerned. You can argue all you want but those are the facts. Why the GOP cannot or will not put more minorities and women on the tickts is up for debate.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

You can try and ignore the reality a you want. The simple fact remains that the GOP is less redlective of society as a whole tban the DNC is. Looking at the country is not a narrow parameter. Choosing only a certain type of person to represent is a narrow parameter. To argue that those that are chosen are the best that we have is not only 'narrow' but ignorant.

I can remember not to long ago some of the most vile and disgusting comments the Democrats made about Hillary, or do you just refuse to remember! I have no love of Hillary as a politician but it goes beyond low-life status to vilify her in the manner that the Democrats did. Spare me your ignorance. The fact that you twice elected the most intellectually challenged, lying two faced black man to ever run for office does nothing to boaster (noun) your claim that diversity will be America's saving grace. Good ahead, brag about Obama's (lack) of accomplishments and tell me where your lily white ass stands.

 

[Ms Tree]

I remember it. Sexism is not just a conservative trait. I think it is more dominante there but not by much.

The biggest reason Obama was elected twice is because the GOP found the worst possible alternatives. I voted againt the worse of the two possibilities.

 

[Ms Tree]

Again, you want to make it about race and plumbing. And you call conservatives the ones looking at narrow parameters?...

Are ypu trhing to imply that minorities and women are the only ones who vote based on race and gender? Im sure that some minorities especially blacks voted for Obama based on his race. Same for women and Clinton. How ever I beleive there is just as large a percentage of whites who voted for the same reason.

 

[southwind]

Harry Reid ! What a swell guy !

"Help kids with cancer? Reid asks: 'Why would we want to do that?'"

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blaming Republicans for the National Institutes of Health turning away cancer patients. But when asked why the Senate wouldn't try to help "one child who has cancer" by approving a mini-spending bill, he shot back: "Why would we want to do that?"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/02/why-would-want-to-do-that/

So just who's acting like the 2 year old now ?