Forum Index » Chaff » Bundy......A True American Hero?


Display Avatars Sort By:
Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law, not the biggest militia, should prevail on 04/17/2014 20:48:50 MDT Print View

"I will grant you that, but you guys definitely have the market cornered on the lunatic-militia man-federal govt is unconstitutional nut jobs. We just have everyone else. :)"

Been to Michigan lately? ;0)

Ryan Smith
(ViolentGreen) - M

Locale: Southeast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law, not the biggest militia, should prevail on 04/18/2014 11:11:43 MDT Print View

No. Thank goodness!

Ryan

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
What party are the real racists? on 04/18/2014 11:29:17 MDT Print View

Ken,
I'll see your:

"http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-hark-back-to-the-politics-of-race-020141291.html"


...and raise you the truth:

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/Civil_rights_history.htm

M

Truth:

Unknown History: The Real History of Civil Rights Movement



Unveiled: Democrats’ Racist Past

By Frances Rice ( Frances Rice is a lawyer, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association)

Democrats who say they don’t care about civil rights history do so because they want to hide the Democratic Party’s racist past. Hypocritically, these same Democrats are quick to falsely accuse Republicans of being racist, while pontificating about why black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party—a party whose failed socialist policies have turned black communities into economic and social wastelands.

Surveys show that black Americans think conservative, but vote liberal because they have been barraged for over 40 years with falsehoods about the Republican Party by the Democrats who have hijacked the civil rights record of the Republican Party and taken blacks down the path of Socialism.

The time is long overdue for the curtain of deceit to be lifted and the ugly truth told about the Democratic Party’s horrendous history of racism and anti-black socialist policies that have caused so much harm to black Americans.

The Democratic Party’s Failed Socialism

The deplorable condition in black neighborhoods that have been run by Democrats for the past 40 years is well documented by black Democrat Juan Williams in his book entitled Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America. Democrats have the audacity to blame Republicans for the crisis in black neighborhoods created by the Democrats and the temerity to claim that it is Republicans who have done nothing for blacks.

In fact, Republicans have done a great deal to help black Americans, including appointing more blacks to high-level positions than at any time in our nation’s history. Record money has been spent on education, job training and health care, as well as assistance with becoming home and small business owners. Since the 1960’s, over $7 trillion has been spent on poverty programs. The Washington Post reported that as of 2006, the federal government had in place over 80 poverty-related programs costing $500 billion annually.

Here in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist has been a leader in the civil rights movement. He achieved passage of the Dr. Marvin Davies Florida Civil Rights Act to stop discrimination. He accomplished the restoration of civil rights for ex-offenders. He also signed a budget that provides $24.4 billion for education that prepares graduates for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future.

Money is not the issue. The socialist policies of the Democratic Party are at the root of the pathos in black communities. To their eternal shame, Democrats fight every effort of Republicans to help blacks get out of poverty. Democrats oppose school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black parents get their children out of failing schools. Democrats oppose the faith-based initiative that would help black ministers provide social services to the poor. Democrats oppose reform of Social Security even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the system because blacks on average have a five-year shorter life expectancy.

Despite these policies that run counter to the best interest of black people, black Americans keep voting for Democrats because every election cycle Democrats preach hatred against Republicans and get blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans and not a vote for Democrats. Deliberately, Democrats keep black poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Any black person who becomes self-reliant and prosperous is denigrated as a “sellout.” With this reprehensible strategy, Democrats have built their power base on the backs of poor blacks. Democrat Demagogues get away with this tactic because Democrats have hidden their racist past and sold Socialism to blacks, a system that sounds good but has proven to be devastating to black communities.

Knowledge is power. In addition to exposing the failed Socialism of the Democrats, a key step to helping to free blacks from the Democratic Party’s economic plantation is to shed the light of truth on the racist past of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party’s Racist Past

As author Michael Scheurer succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

Facts about racism in the Democratic Party can be found in books such as A Short History of Reconstruction by Dr. Eric Foner and Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett. Two other books are Unfounded Loyalty and Unveiling the Whole Truth by Rev. Wayne Perryman. Rev. Perryman wrote his books after conducting five years of research. He then sued the Democratic Party for that party’s 200-year history of racism. Under oath in court, the Democrats admitted their racist past, but refused to apologize because they know that they can take the black vote for granted.

History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it. From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. Republicans fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans also passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was A Republican and NBRA Logo ItemsIt was Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan that became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to lynch and terrorize Republicans-black and white. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and fought every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans. Republicans founded the HCBU’s and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats. It took Republicans six decades to finally enact civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.

It defies logic for Democrats today to claim that the racist Democrats suddenly joined the Republican Party after Republicans—including Republican Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—finally won the civil rights battle against the racist Democrats. In fact, the racist Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

The Modern Civil Rights Era

Undeniably, during the civil rights era of the 1960's, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school.



Historical records show that it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.



Omitted from discussions today are significant facts about the struggle to pass the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned racial discrimination by any entity receiving federal government financing. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the passage of the bill. When the bill finally came up for a vote, the House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124. 80% of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted yes, and only 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats in the Senate voting no, and only 6 Republicans voting no.

Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that authorized the federal government to abolish literacy tests and other means used to prevent blacks from exercising their constitutional right to vote that was granted by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress finally decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.

Edited by bigfoot2 on 04/18/2014 11:30:31 MDT.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: What party are the real racists? on 04/18/2014 15:29:12 MDT Print View

You know Matthew, I never understand why conservatives bring this stuff up. Can you cite one single thing since 1964 where the GOP has been more progressive on civil rights than the democrats?

Back then the GOP was for a marginal tax rate of 90%, too...and I don't see you continuing to bring that up.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: What party are the real racists? on 04/18/2014 17:41:52 MDT Print View

again Matthew, as I brought up earlier...The GOP and Dems have traded places in the care stakes....which includes allowing others that are not white a chance in life. It is silly and quite ill-informed on your part not to realize this.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: What party are the real racists? on 04/18/2014 17:43:12 MDT Print View

and all the people that you mentioned that were "good" Republicans would have been Dems in today's society. LOL

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: What party are the real racists? on 04/18/2014 17:45:02 MDT Print View

It's not that the GOP and Dems have traded places

It's that the southern senators that were Democratic switched to Republican after the Civil Rights Bills were passed

LBJ said that the Democrats would lose them for generations but thought he had no choice but to do it anyway

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
How about TODAY's GOP? on 04/18/2014 18:41:01 MDT Print View

"Here in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist has been a leader in the civil rights movement."

--- well, i believe Former Gov Crist left the GOP in disgust and is now a Democrat

"Historical records show that it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960."

--- you mean the Eisenhower who famously said "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our history."
--- the same Eisenhower who invested TAX DOLLARS in a socialist highway system?
--- the same Eisenhower who said "Legislation to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work without discrimination because of sex is a matter of simple justice. "

"Republicans have done a great deal to help black Americans, including appointing more blacks to high-level positions than at any time in our nation’s history"

--- you mean like Colin Powell, who has disavowed the GOP?

Shall I go on?????

The GOP would eviscerate these people as pansy liberal elites now.

As I asked...will those of you who disagree with the notion that the GOP is actually welcoming to African Americans (or Hispanics for that matter) please give a MODERN day example of that welcoming spirit??

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Here PIGGY, PIGGY! on 04/19/2014 01:18:40 MDT Print View

Jerry,
You stated: "It's not that the GOP and Dems have traded places

It's that the southern senators that were Democratic switched to Republican after the Civil Rights Bills were passed"

This is complete BS...re-read the article I posted above, from a BLACK REPUBLICAN, that totally nullifies what you just stated. Your argument is invalid, old and worn out. Get a new one. Awwh...you'll never read it, so i'll just re-post that part for you:

"It defies logic for Democrats today to claim that the racist Democrats suddenly joined the Republican Party after Republicans—including Republican Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—finally won the civil rights battle against the racist Democrats. In fact, the racist Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks."

Jennifer and Ken (and Jerry),
You three are the most ardent, vocal supporters of your mindless Democratic party ideology on BPL. That's fine, but it really does not matter what I post as a reply to you guys, as you will just scream "Racist! Homophobic! Bigot!", etc. There is no room for other ideas or points of view in your minds, as it's either your way or the highway. You will do whatever it takes, name calling, personal attacks and derogatory statements, to belittle your opponents point of views, and in the process, become just what you are supposedly fighting against. You guys will be the first to bully someone who disagrees with your anti-bullying platform. LOL. I honestly view you as sheep at this point. To you, the end justifies the means.

I received a PM this morning from a member here on BPL that stated that " trying to debate Ken is like trying to wrestle a dyslexic, greased piglet with turrets,PTSD and downs syndrome". That's not really very far off. Most conservatives on BPL (and there are more than you'd think) are intimidated by the very vocal minority of liberals who attack anything other than their narrow mindset, so they kept their mouths shut. I wrote a reply to that person that stated that the reason I get on here and debate you guys is not to change YOUR minds, but to assure OTHER people who think like I do that they are not alone! The only people who bother to bring up someones race or ethnicity are Democrat liberals, like you. Can't you see the hypocrisy? I know the color of someone's skin or their ethnicity is the last thing (if at all) anyone in my county's local chapter of the Republican party ever thinks about. That's because it simply does not matter. The reason for this is because the Republican party was expressly started to combat slavery and promote civil rights. Period. That's history and a fact. Your party was not. Quite the opposite, really. I'm sure you'll say "that was a long time ago. Now you are all racist, white, rich folks!". Yeah, that's like saying our Constitution is old and outdated and does not matter. Yes, history matters! The best gauge of what a party will do in the future is what it has done in the past. History gives us a compass bearing when we stray from the correct path by reminding us what we are there for. Why the party was started and where we are going. Sure, there's people who match your description of the Republican party, but they are not the majority. The same can be said of the Democrats. There are always stereotypes, exceptions, but they are not the norm.

Early Democrat Part VS. Republican Party Poster:

d

Jennifer, you said:
"As I asked...will those of you who disagree with the notion that the GOP is actually welcoming to African Americans (or Hispanics for that matter) please give a MODERN day example of that welcoming spirit??"

What kind of a trick question is that? Talk about arbitrary. What is your definition of "welcoming"? No matter who or what I post, you are so closed minded and blinded by your liberal ideology that you will just laugh, give a reason why they sold out and are an "Uncle Tom", or call them misguided at best, stupid at worst. Seriously? Here, little piggy, let's wipe that grease off you..oink, oink.

b

That said, there are lots of men and women who think for themselves (and are of a certain skin "color" that Democrats constantly love to bring up), that define themselves as conservative. It's not "cool" or "hip" to do so, so they are doubly brave these days and should be applauded for free thinking and not giving in to peer pressure. Here is just a few prominent ones that come to mind (I don't include Powell, as I thought he was a JOKE):

Alan Keyes
Condoleezza Rice
Frederick Douglass
Thomas Sowell
Allen West
Tim Scott
Clarence Thomas
Michael S. Steele
Michael L. Williams
Alveda C. King
J. Kenneth Blackwell
J.C. Watts Jr
Jennette B. Bradley
Don King
Lynn Swann (1974-1982 Pittsburgh Steelers)
Sammy Davis Jr
Edward William Brooke, III
Herman Cain
Ben Carson
b
Mia Love
A. Philip Randolph
Harriet Tubman
George Washington Carver
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I could go on and on, but my point is made.
So...in response to your question, Jennifer, please tell me who the first Democratic black congressman was, how many blacks have been elected to congress and how does that record compare to Republican congressman? Should be easy to Google. I know, it's not an arbitrary assignment where you can use emotions as facts, but I have faith in you you. You can do it!

M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 04/19/2014 02:21:05 MDT.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Here PIGGY, PIGGY! on 04/19/2014 08:06:12 MDT Print View

"Here, little piggy, let's wipe that grease off you..oink, oink."

seriously?

And you are telling ME I have no intelligent, rational argument? I'll just let that one sit there - you are a better argument against yourself than anything I could ever say.



You still never answered my question about how the CURRENT crop of conservatives is even remotely welcoming to minorities (not jim crow, not Harriet Tubmann - and by the way, MLK was not a republican: (from Snopes)
"A commonly circulated item about Martin Luther King which is not included in this list is the claim that King was a Republican. Such claims are based purely on speculation; King himself never expressed an affiliation with, nor endorsed candidates for, any political party, and his son, Martin Luther King III, said: "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican."
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp#7BJGAz285AXbUWR4.99" )

The simple fact that you can actually make a list of conservative black people (including several from the time of slavery) just proves my point. I'm not saying NO blacks or hispanics are conservative...of course not. But when you have 95% of a population voting against you, and in the case of hispanics an increasingly larger percentage every election cycle, has to mean something substantive.

Please oh please tell me you aren't one of those current tea party folks who want to actually argue that the black man was better off during slavery because he had 2 parents and that he actually enjoyed his servitude........
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/07/michelle-bacmann-slavery/

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Here PIGGY, PIGGY! on 04/19/2014 08:18:24 MDT Print View

"Your argument is invalid, old and worn out. Get a new one..."

https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0619.html#article

All the 22 Southern Senators voted against the bill - 21 Democrats and 1 Republican

Today there are 16 Republican and 6 Democratic Senators in southern states

I'll give that writer credit for coming up with a bunch of words that says otherwise. A good debater can win either side of an argument.


What's too bad is that after the civil war there wasn't more reconciliation. We needed a Nelson Mandella. Or maybe Nelson Mandella saw how horrible "reconstruction" was so he made sure the same thing didn't happen in South Africa.

Maybe there wouldn't be so much animosity today.

The Confederates were more skillful but were ground down by the North's better manufacturing. Both sides fought bravely. Let's put it behind us. But remember how horrible war is so we don't repeat.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Here PIGGY, PIGGY! on 04/19/2014 09:51:01 MDT Print View

Jennifer and Jerry....you both just ran rings around Matthew.

Matthew (shaking my head right now) you crack me up man.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Bundy......A True American Hero? on 04/19/2014 11:11:22 MDT Print View

I am very aware that this article has a slant ( Austrian economics) but there are bits in here worth incorporating. Interesting map as well.

http://mises.org/daily/6723/Ranchers-and-Empire-in-the-American-West

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Bundy......A True American Hero? on 04/19/2014 14:02:26 MDT Print View

That is weird, and arbitrary that so much land in the West is federally owned.

Of course, most of it is arid and not real valuable.

If some of it was sold, I hope it would be done at a fair price, wouldn't just be a give-a-way to the politically connected. Sort of like all those businesses in the USSR.

Interesting that big businesses are happier with federal ownership than smaller.

Charles G.
(Rincon) - M

Locale: Desert Southwest
Public lands. on 04/19/2014 15:43:55 MDT Print View

"That is weird, and arbitrary that so much land in the West is federally owned."

Not really. Virtually all of what now constitutes our public lands is land that was left over after "The Closing of the American West". During the westward movement, huge tracts of land passed into private ownership via The Homestead Act, mining claims, The Timber and Stone Act, railroad and wagon road land grants and grants to the states for Land Grant colleges and statehood grants, among others. A lot of land also passed into private hands fraudulently.

The land that remained unclaimed, because nobody wanted it, eventually passed into Federal ownership under the administration of the USFS and the BLM. The Federal government pays Lieu Payments to most of the counties in which the lands lie; these are payments "in lieu" of property taxes and are often the major source of income to many rural counties.

The USFS and BLM are mandated to manage these lands "for the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run". They are not to manage for the welfare of local timber men or cattlemen. There may be numerous disputes regarding the details of how these lands are managed but, they are managed according to Congressional mandate, not according to the whims of a local bureaucrat.

In my opinion, these lands are a national treasure and should be protected for eternity from passing into private hands. Those who advocate turning federal lands over to the states should be careful what they ask for. If federal lands were turned over to the states, the states would then be responsible for the lieu payments and I don't think they would welcome the added burden nor would the counties welcome the potential loss of income.

There are many with opinions of how our federal lands should be managed. These opinions are seldom based on any knowledge of the history, laws or issues on which management is based: this just confirms my notion that ignorance is seldom a barrier to opinion.

Edited by Rincon on 04/19/2014 16:02:13 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Public lands. on 04/19/2014 16:50:13 MDT Print View

I'm not arguing one way or the other, just wondering on what basis land should be privatized

Up to some point in time, land was privatized as you mentioned, so the land that was deemed most useful was taken. Then, the remaining, less useful land was kept as federal. That is somewhat arbitrary.

If you rent land to ranchers, they may not treat it as well as if they owned the land forever. If they owned it, they'de want to preserve it for future years.

On the other hand, lots of examples of owners taking short term profits and not worrying about the long term, like some lumber companies

Sometimes the federal government is better at managing the land, sometime not so good.

I definitely object to the government taking a short term profit by selling it, and then squandering those profits. Like there are some cases of selling off highways to private companies. Profits solve short term fiscal problems. "Libertarian" politicians brag about how great they are fiscally. But then there are long term problems.

Maybe, given no strong reason one way or the other, just leave as is.

And we should make sure that we are sustaining populations of plants and animals, whether the land is public or private, but maybe easier if it's public.

. Kirby
(Kirby805) - F
Re: Re: Here PIGGY, PIGGY! on 04/19/2014 19:19:01 MDT Print View

"...when you have 95% of a population voting against you, and in the case of hispanics an increasingly larger percentage every election cycle, has to mean something substantive."

Let's be honest. The only reason they don't vote for conservatives is because they are low information voters, or brainwashed by the elite Hollywood mainstream MSM medias, or just want more free stuff for the lazy moocher victims. It has nothing to do with conservatives' policies or widely publicized comments. There's no "good" reason minorities don't vote for conservatives. Whatever the reason may be, it's not conservatives' fault.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Let's not forget on 04/19/2014 19:34:21 MDT Print View

....that backpacking in the US in general, and backpacking light in particular are for the most part a white privileged bunch of folks.
Not putting down anyone; I think I am very privileged , but it seems an odd place to be discussing ethnicities and voting. I think we come off as even more privileged and clueless and may be causing some legitimate head shaking. It is quite likely that in large part the African American community is tired of anyone else speaking for them.


Edited for spelling.

Edited by Kat_P on 04/20/2014 16:34:08 MDT.

Charles G.
(Rincon) - M

Locale: Desert Southwest
Oh boy! on 04/19/2014 19:44:10 MDT Print View

"Let's be honest. The only reason they don't vote for conservatives is because they are low information voters, or brainwashed by the elite Hollywood mainstream MSM medias, or just want more free stuff for the lazy moocher victims. It has nothing to do with conservatives' policies or widely publicized comments. There's no "good" reason minorities don't vote for conservatives. Whatever the reason may be, it's not conservatives' fault."

Well, I guess that clears thing up. It's always refreshing to hear an unbiased, objective simplistic opinion on a complex subject. As I stated in an earlier post, "ignorance is seldom a barrier to opinion". Your post confirms my notion.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Let's not forget on 04/20/2014 07:24:54 MDT Print View

sigh

Edited by kennyhel77 on 04/20/2014 07:33:31 MDT.