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.
JerseyG, that's some great spin but if you want to debate actual facts regarding his views and what denomination they typically fall under, I'd be more than happy to embarass you like I did with husseindcs.
JerseyG, that's some great spin but if you want to debate actual facts regarding his views and what denomination they typically fall under, I'd be more than happy to embarass you like I did with husseindcs.
?? How could anyone be embarrassed by what you post? When you dont link your sources, every post of your is dismissed as opinion.
DOes anyone here fear that there will be rioting, chaos, and violence if Obama loses in 2012, especially if it is by a small margin and there is controvsy over votes like with Gore and Bush before?
I think it will be worse violence than what we avoided in 2000. IMHO, if Obama fails to be re-elected in a close race, we could see massive rioting like what happened with Rodney King in 1992 with gangs of inner city residents rampaging through the streets, fermented by Jeremiah Wright types. If the police beating of a single black criminal can cause days of violence and chaos, one can only wonder what happens if a self-identified black president and former radical community organizer fails to be re-elected, the anger that will be present in America's inner city communities. I live in Baltimore and am very wary of this and in my opinion alone, I think people living in or near major cities should all be concerned about this possibility. There are also radical socialist, anarchist, and hippie organizations that may engage in violence, on a far larger level than what we see whenever the World Bank, the G8, or the IMF meets.
I don't think the same people who burned down Los Angeles in 1992 or who rampaged through Seattle during the WTO meetings will just sit at home and do nothing if their candidate is defeated, especially if the race is close and the victor is white. If it is Michael Steele or Bobby Jindal perhaps this MAY be avoided, and even then that would be a HUGE perhaps.
The same question as asked before the results were in during the last election and the answer is still the same, No, there would be no rioting. But then again if the Repubs cannot come up with a candidate that has real answers and ideas to deal with the issues and only present another choice lacking those credentials the President will be re-elected, making the speculation mute.
Casper
LoneSentile, read his views and try to tell me with a straight face he was a liberal. I don't need to post links to prove the right has traditionally been on the opposite side of big government, taxes, unions and the Catholic church. This isn't kindergarten.
Historians are already putting Bush at the bottom of the list-Obama will do better than Bush did- Bush was also one of the biggest liars to ever have been a president-
LoneSentile, read his views and try to tell me with a straight face he was a liberal. I don't need to post links to prove the right has traditionally been on the opposite side of big government, taxes, unions and the Catholic church. This isn't kindergarten.
Twisted, I have yet to see you post a link to back up ANY post you have made. Presently, I find your comments ignorable....
I did post multiple links in your progressive thread. You just happened to ignore them. The views of anti big government, anti-taxes, anti-union and anti-Catholicism are all views predominately held by the right. If you need proof of that, read any post in the Joe Stack threads, or take a PoliSci 101 class.
Twista, I don't think there's anything wrong with not supporting big government or higher and higher taxes. The American Revolution was fought over taxes, and despite what the revisionist textbooks say, the federal government's oppressive tax policies were also a reason for the secession of the Confederacy in the Civil War.
I think I can make my own health care decisions better than some government bureaucrat. Government's job is to provide essential services like defense, etc, not to regulate every aspect of our life.
Twista, I don't think there's anything wrong with not supporting big government or higher and higher taxes. The American Revolution was fought over taxes, and despite what the revisionist textbooks say, the federal government's oppressive tax policies were also a reason for the secession of the Confederacy in the Civil War.
I think I can make my own health care decisions better than some government bureaucrat. Government's job is to provide essential services like defense, etc, not to regulate every aspect of our life.
The tax policies were miniscule pre-bellum than they are to today. And no government beauracrat is making your health plan. And I would consider healthcare an essential service, not some upper class priviledge.
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.
