Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All true. The wingnuts won't admit that gun ownership (the feeling of power and control they get from it) is as addictive to them as crack cocaine or meth is to a drug addict. Part of their "thrill" is wrapping themselves in the 2nd Amendment to insure a feeling of superiority, as though the Founding Fathers fully envisioned semi automatics in America's future when they wrote the Bill Of Rights.
I know people who base their votes solely on someones stance on "gun control", and many of those same types probably post here. It's fairly widespread in Wingnuttia.
Keep living in your delusional world. You haven't a clue as to what anyone else believes.
In regards to Democrats having "anti-Christian" rhetoric, I don't consider this to be accurate. We are supposed to have separation of church and state. It's what allows all people to believe what they want without any one religious belief to rule the land. Just because someone doesn't want fundamentalism forced on them it does not mean they are un-Christian.
The other issue about the racist charge lies squarely at the so-called "Birther Movement." Does anyone really think this would have gone on for four years now if Obama was not a black man? I've felt insulted by it, and I'm a white person.
"We are supposed to have separation of church and state." No where in any official documents is that phrase.
Watch this. It will really surprise you:
A Church very Few People Know About right in the heart of D.C. Everyone in the United States needs to see this;
Most especially our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices. Something we were never taught in school; 99 out of 100 people don't know
this, do you?
As Adam Carolla has so aptly noted, these people aren't about "freedom," they're all about guns. You won't see them defending the 20 year-old kid who gets sent to the slammer for selling a few ounces of weed. In fact, most will cheer that.
A 20-year-old kid should not be selling weed in the first place.
"We are supposed to have separation of church and state." No where in any official documents is that phrase.
Watch this. It will really surprise you:
A Church very Few People Know About right in the heart of D.C. Everyone in the United States needs to see this;
Most especially our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices. Something we were never taught in school; 99 out of 100 people don't know
this, do you?
Separation of Church and State is well established in all founding documents. The founders were very aware of the destructiveness of combining the two.
Separation of Church and State is well established in all founding documents. The founders were very aware of the destructiveness of combining the two.
The state is not to interfere with religion. The federal government can't establish a religion.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,660,872 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet
Sav, you are wrong. Most on the right are inside right. Which traditionally is America in a nutshell. Most don't follow Pat Robinson or reverend Wright? Think about it. Quite a few people on the right care very much about the poor, probably attend some church of some doctrine, are fairly tolerant of those that differ, and have a patriotic vein.
They are anything but extreme. This president, is simply the most polarizing that I can ever recall. Nixon made a good run at it but, overall, people were even more to the right back then....or were they? They wanted the war to end and most folks left or right felt that way. This one has just been to far left and thus, the angst.
I thought Clinton brought on the most up to that point but, this one is a whole nutha' animal. You can't blame this on a co-president because that person does not exist. There is no way to logically dispute how much anxiety this one has brought on and race had nothing to do with it as whites carried him into office.
This is a mantle he built himself. Even the media could not provide enough cover. He has single handedly polarized America. No one likes to be attacked. Left or right. This is probably why you are feeling the need to weigh in with conviction. I often feel that way on the right. This severe line that has been drawn happened on his watch........
Clinton vs bush and perot? No. But, please remember, it was the inside right that gave Perot a record 20 percent of the vote (for the most part) for an independent....ron paul gets an honorable mention. That cost Bush I the election but the biggest tag line then was.....read my lips.....myopic compared to TODAY's comments, huh? Bush vs Kerry? Just some jokes but, a bit more extreme......Carter vs regan? Pretty easy sweep as Carter was by all measures, a disaster......this guy? Whoa! Domestic world war III....mortal combat....tea parties, evangelicals, muslims, the poor, the extreme left and right.....a true potpourri of humanity.....good or bad.....visceral comes to mind....
I would think all sides would crave to have a more benign campaign at this point....this one has been mentally and emotionally exhausting. However, the comments that the right are extreme is nonsense. Everyone is just way more demonstrative than usual. It will be interesting to see how things go after the election. The economy WILL directly correlate to the mood no matter who wins....
I would like to see some corroborating evidence that this administration has been the most polarizing in recent memory. Without such evidence, this claim is hard for me to believe for several reasons.
In 1968, for example, the country was so divided that Johnson declined to run for re-election as the Democratic candidate, resulting in Humphrey and Muskie running for that party. Wallace's third-party run certainly helped cement Nixon's victory by peeling away northern white male urban and blue-collar voters from the Democratic column.
Fast forward to 2000. It took the extremely controversial Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision to decide the presidential election, a first in American history. The margin of victory was determined in FL by arguably 400 to 600 votes, which certainly indicates a level of polarization that was not repeated in the 2008 McCain/Obama election. In that latter election, both the popular vote and the Electoral College totals clearly favored Obama; the election was called at a little after 10:00 PM CT in favor of Obama.
To be fair, it could be that those who did not vote for Obama in 2008 perceive more polarization now than they did in 2000 because they did not get their desired outcome in 2008. The understandable sting of loss would make a sense of polarization seem to be heightened now because of that loss. But, as someone who was a reluctant Gore supporter in 2000, a reluctant Kerry supporter in 2004, and an almost equally reluctant Obama supporter in 2008, I really don't think that polarization has increased under Obama. While it is true that opposition to a Democratic president after 2008 grew in terms of both size and volume, it is also true that such opposition to a Democratic president in the election cycles following 2000 and 2004 had no real reason d'etre. Thus, the current opposition to Obama should not necessarily be mistaken for prima facie evidence of increased political polarization among the populace at large. To put it more simply, to arrive at that conclusion would be to compare apples to oranges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
