Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

At Least We Now Know Who The Enemy Actually Is

This moderate centrist black Christian Democratic President has certainly drawn all the lunatics out of the asylums spewing all the venom they can muster, which is little more than thinly veiled racism, misguided and misinformed trailer park religion, and the very worst of George Wallace nationalism. It's not even a matter of Conservatism versus Liberalism. Hell, Conservatives and Liberals can have a lively and productive political debate because they have the best interest of the country at heart. You guys, however, are nothing more than flag waving Nazis who, if you get your way, will end up making pre WW2 Germany look like a garden spot.

I'd like to remind you, not that it will do any good, that Progressives love their country every bit as much as you claim to, and if we could put up with President George Bush and still be civil about it, then by God you can be civil about this President, who's about as dangerous as a wool blanket on a cold night.



onlinegrandpa onlinegrandpa 61-65 332 Responses Apr 11, 2010

Your Response


I like how you said trailer park religion, this explains more than half the people that dont like Obama. I respect if someone has a different opinion, but most of the things that are said are racial slurs and so forth. If there was a white president that was elected and did the same things as obama, most of the people complaining wouldnt complain at all. Its hard living in texas sometimes.......

Are you kidding? Do you really think the only reason conservatives complain about Obama is because he is black? It is funny how race isn't mentioned in any of the criticisms I have heard about only his policies. As for there being no complaints if he were white, that is so far out of line it isn't even funny. And trailer park religion? Please! What a cheap shot that is. Either defend Obama's policies or refute the criticisms but religion and race have nothing to do with complaints against Obama.

No, they hate him for telling the truth too.

obama is the prince of fools thing wont get better whit the fools can get money from gov.

Things ARE better. Ask the 5 million with new jobs

5 million new jobs...LOL... less the 12 million lost but not the math. It's the same math for unemployment figures. Only counting the ones receiving unemployment and forgetting those numbers that never found Jobs but are out of "benefits".

Why is there such little respect for this President??? I have read rge comments here and I am disgusted by the rude and mean spirited remarks. I can only conclude that racism must be at the root of it.

Obama went on a mad spending binge that put America in financial crisis approaching that of southern Europe, and there's nothing to show for it. The recovery in America has been so weak it's not really a recovery, far worse than the Western countries that did NOT spend like mad, including yours. Obama has been the most divisively partisan president in modern American history. Since Republicans won the House in 2010, Obama has abandoned governing by the law and Constitution and begun ruling by decrees that violate the laws which are still in full legal force. This is unspeakablly dangerous. It is dictatorial behavior for which he should be impeached but won't be because the dishonest liberal media cover for him. And you want to tell us that if only he were white, we would not be wroth about these outrages? That's as honest as saying any male who sharply criticizes feminism or American women as compared to non-American women is a "misogynist." Crying "bigotry" is the last refuge of scoundrels in today's climate. (I'm not calling you a scoundrel, but I do indeed call the people you are imitating scoundrels.)

Yes... decrees he has to make because the Republican filled H of R knows it can make political \'hay\' by forcing him into that position. Your previous Repubican Pres. is the one who squandered your money... Obama is just trying to fill the holes that GW dug. Too bad the American Government doesn\'t want to govern and is putting the burden on one man!

Do the math, he has taken the deficit he inherited and increased it. It is time for Obama to quit the blame game and to start governing.He has been in office for over four years and has only gotten one budget passed.
I do not hold the Republicans blameless in all of this but as president he needs to lead and negotiate. When the sequestration deadline was looming he was on the golf course instead of metting with co-ngressional leaders. He only met with them AFTER the deadline for a settlement (actually the deadline was pushed back one day but that was how the president scheduled it). That is not leadership it is politcal gamesmanship.
I voted for Obama in 08 because he said he was going to end political gridlock but it o-nly got worse. He was also going to balance the budget in three years and it has only gotten larger.
Now we have the mess in syria where the president has drawn the line on the use of chemical weapons. As far as i am concerned he is the commander in cheif of the US armed forces and should use his best judgement to do what is best for the country but so far all I have seen is tough talk and hand wringing. Why doesn\'t anyone see the double standard how Bush was supposed to need the aprroval of co-ngress the UN and probably a note from his mother to take any kind of military action. Now Obama has backed himself into a corner on the use of military force and he sees no problem acting on his own. I thought Democrats didn\'t operate that way.
First the president thought diplomacy could solve everything and when he found out that wasn\'t true he tried tought talk (his was a red line Bush had a line in the sand). Now he is worried it will be another Iraq. He needs to quit sulking and act!

Yes, he\'s in a tight spot with Syria. I\'m not going to say that he was \'set up\' for it, but.... it\'s hard to drain the swamp when you\'re up to your arse in alligators: What would the political view in the USA have been if he had not \'drawn a line on Syria?\" He would have been called \'soft.\' Now the reality is that if he acts unilaterally against Syria that he\'ll bring the USA into another war - I suppose he should just \'hard-line\' it and forge ahead? Those are your sons and daughters and I\'d rather see him eat a bit of crow than do a GW Bush re-entry! On the good side: Perhaps the Arab League can help on this (perhaps not too). It would really help the American people IF: 1/ the USA stopped trying to be everything to everybody; 2/ pulled it\'s horns (make that nose) back a bit and let people govern themselves - Socialism has been around for 96 years now and it only thrives in countries where the poor outnumber the rich - look around yourself. Take care of Americans and your country might thrive again.... but NO! - there\'s a Republican H of R that says that is UN-American! Yes, it may be, but perhaps that 1890\'s expansionist philosophy is just that 120 years too old!
Back to Obama and the deficit: Who was it who when the Iraq war was costing too much decided to let poor people with no cushion of savings buy houses so there would be a larger tax base to cover government costs?
That wasn\'t Obama, was it? When that market crashed who tried to find a solution? Was it the H of R? NO.... it was the Presidency! Yes, the measures are, as you rightly say, \'deficit spending\' - when there is NO MONEY, do you sell the country? What would your choice have been? Yes, he has NOT been successful in getting a budget passed.... but he has proposed them! Who is cutting him off at the knees because they don\'t want any hikes in taxes??? THE RICH??? It certainly isn\'t the poor! Now: look around again.... better yet, look at your \'Corporate America\' (there are bar charts showing the disproportion of wealth) and see where most of the USA\'s wealth is sitting - waiting for a bear market opportunity so it can make a killing while starving you folks in the waiting. Who owns \"Corporate America?\" It certainly isn\'t the poor - and probably not you either!
There are solutions - rewriting the tax laws is one. Where is he going with that suggestion??? It\'s your country, not mine. If it were mine, I\'d still be voting for Obama.

Says the fool who fails to acknowledge that the growth of government is DOWN under Obama

President Bush expanded the National Debt to approximately $5 Trillion in eight years in office.

President Obama has expanded the National Debt from $5 T to more than $16 T, an increase of over $11 T in five years. Well, I guess President Obama clearly won that round, if you can call that winning.

You may want to check those numbers lickitysplit, we have not added 11T since Jan of 09.

Brilliant comment!

I was accused of racism since I am so anti-Obummer. Then the dopey liberals had egg or their faces when they found out I originally supported Herman Cain until he dropped out. Gumshoe is wrong.

It isn't so much the criticism or disagreement with his policies that bothers me, in fact I don't personally agree with all of his policies or beliefs myself. People have every right to critique their elected officials policies. What really bothers me is the blatant, mean and disrespect directed his way. He is the President of the most powerful nation in the world and his own people disrespect him. I find this unconscionable and extremely dangerous, not only for President Obama's personal safety but also for the sake of the nation and in the interest of peace.

CC, thank you for explaining some of it to me. As a Canadian I do acknowledge that there is much i do not know about American politics.

I don't see much disrespect in the criticism of the President. I see most of it directed towards his policies and there is nothing disrespectful about that. My biggest complaint about him is he got elected by saying he was going to end gridlock and partisan bickering. Now we have gone three straight years without getting a budget passed. This from the man who says he was going to end gridlock?
He also makes comments about how he wished he didn't have to deal with congress and could just govern without them. Then when congress tried to give him the authority to have more input into how the sequestration cuts were implemented he refused such authority. It seems he wants authority when it comes to spending money but when it comes to making hard choices on cuts that is up to congress to decided.
When the deadline was approaching for the sequestration he scheduled his meeting with congressional leader for the day AFTER the deadline! Couldn't he have at least met with them before hand if only for appearance sake. To schedule such a meeting after a major deadline speaks volumes about his willingness to bargain in good faith with the opposing party.
Then his 2014 budget comes out and his press secretary makes the comment that it wasn't what he would have wanted if he were king. Who said anything about being king??? What kind of attitude is that? Can you imagine if George Bush, Ronald Regan or Richard Nixon's press secretary had made such a comment??
No I don't think the criticism towards the President is mean spirited at all and very little it seems racist either. I just think people are just trying to hold him accountable.

Wish I could give this 1000 likes.

Thank you so much.

11 More Responses

Progressives don't love America. They constantly go out of their way to trash it. They tell lies about the Founding Fathers in order to denigrate America.

And this story should have been posted in a liberal group, not this one, according to EP's guidelines.

Who in God's name are you to say that "Progressives don't love America"? What makes you the arbiter of who does and does not love America. If my mother is an alcoholic or a junkie and I want her to get help, does that mean I don't love my mother? If I see my father doing awful things and enable him by saying nothing to try and stop him, does that mean I don't love my father.

You, my friend, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "Progressives don't love America." Nonsense!

As much as the very term progressive makes me want to barf as I have to agree with your comment. Just because some believes in what I think is bad policy I think it is going too far to say they do not love America.
I think that is what is wrong with the political debate in this country. Too often opposing views are marginalized. It is the same on the other side of the isle when anyone who brings up any type of social security reform is throwing grandma under the bus or forcing old people to choose between food and medicine.

its going to be very interesting to see what the next president do for this country.

I give the Dems a year before they try to amend the constitution to allow Obama to run for a third term.

online grandpa - are you on serious medication? Our president, President Barrach Obama has demonstrated himself repeatedly to be anything but moderate, centrist, or Christian. Furthermore, it is terribly tiring and cliched to constantly hear the accusations of racism from you people on the fringe left. Are you so bereft of brain cells that you cannot fathom that people can be adamantly opposed to a person's political views and policy presc<x>riptions without being racially biased against the man. <br />
<br />
To me, the very accusations you make are racist.

You know nothing about me except that I oppose President Obama. You can postulate all you want, but your assumptions themselves are racist in nature.

Then perhaps you can expound clearly on your meaning.

When you can offer no effective argument, then repeat what you already have said...

Any postulation or hypothesis is based upon assumptions. I have no doubt that in some cases, opposition to President Obama is based on race because I have witnessed, even here on EP, what is clearly racial bias. That is anecdotal evidence. However, I know my own heart and I know far too many others who share my opposition to President Obama based on policy and politics with race playing no role whatsoever. Therefore, I know your assumptions are faulty as a generalization, which is what you are doing. You are drawing general conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

I see I failed to specifically address your last question. I apologize. Your hypothesis is based on an assumption that opposition by white voters to President Obama's reelection is predominantly a result of racism. That in itself is a generalization based on race, which by definition is racism. Therefore, your statement is racist.

I am afraid that I disagree. What I was referring to was overtly racist statements focused on the president's race. Again, there are racists and some small part of the opposition to President Obama is based on his race. That is racist. However, opposition to President Obama based on his policies, his veracity, or his lack of competence cannot in any way be considered racist. Being on the conservative side of the political aisle here in the US, I have an insider's view of large numbers of people who strong oppose this president, and not one of those people opposed him based on racism. My argument is that the mainstream press in the US and UK seems to rush to generalize and make assumptions that opposition to Obama is racist when it is not. Concurrently, these same reporters and analysts do not consider it racist for Obama supporters to openly and clearly state that their primary reason for voting in favor of President Obama is that he is Black -- a clearly racist point of view and a terrible double standard.

I am sure you are right that I was "reactionary," in responding to you and for that I apologize. I accept that were not accusing me of being racist, although it certainly seemed that way. I do not, however believe you are correctly interpreting the motivation behind anti-Obama sentiment.

Partly I suspect. I used the term in two ways concurrently -- "opposed to [P]rogressive social or political change," but also I used it in the unconventional sense to mean "reacting to statements or events," probably a misuse.

In American parlance, I am philosophically a libertarian (lower case "l") on most social issues while concurrently holding conservative or very conservative views on the size and power of the US Federal Government, Government expenditures, excessive deficit spending, and loose monetary policy that will ultimately lead to rampant inflation.

Constitutionally, I am a "Strict Constructionist" who believes that there is no room for the reinterpretation of the US Constitution to address changes in technology or culture because our framers provided the means within the constitution to revise and Amend the constitution to account for those changes. I personally believe that the US Government today operates far outside of the constraints of our founding legal document, exercising powers not granted to the Federal Government by the constitution or the amendments.

Please stick to the issues. Grandpa's brain cells or the lack thereof are not the issue and you cheapen the debate by making such lame comments.

How are the criticisms of the President racist? I agree with Lickity on this one. To criticize Obama's policies is not in any way racist. Are we to treat him as above reproach because he is black? That would be shallow and condescending. When someone runs for office, especially for President, criticism is part of the package.

OmyTVC15 -- Onlinegrandpa and I have had a history here on EP. He and I appear to be diametrically opposed on a great many issues and he has not always argued his points in a civil and respectful fashion. I no longer have any respect for his opinions and I deeply resent his repeated attempts to label myself and other conservatives as racists, homophobes, radical Christians, etc.

As a libertarian-conservative, I say without reservation that I am none of the things he has in the past said I am or "we" are and I know that most like myself cannot accurately be accused of being any those things. The fact is that I respond particularly to the racist accusation because nothing could be further from the truth. I am myself of mixed race, black and white, I have dated black women, and my very best friend in this world since 1969 is black.

I am one of those people who actually investigated and studied President Obama before he was elected president. I have read what he himself wrote in "Dreams From My Fathers," and what he was taped saying in a wide variety of venues many years prior to his election. If I can say anything positive about President Obama, it is that he is extremely consistent and persistent in pursuing an agenda and specific policies that have not changed for as far back as I can see. Anyone who does similar research will discover this for himself or herself.

President Obama does not like or respect the US as it has existed. He believes we are basically an evil, colonial power that has risen on the backs of minorities both inside and outside the US, particularly on the African continent. He believes in reparations for slavery and Jim Crow but also believes that reparations would ever be approved, therefore they must be accomplished through redistribution of wealth and power in the US. He does not believe that the US should any longer be the worlds strongest power or a "super-power." Whether he is Christian, Muslim, or something else religiously, he has a love and affinity for Islam. I could go on, but will not at this time.

6 More Responses

At Least <br />
We <br />
Now Know <br />
Who The Enemy <br />
Actually Is<br />
<br />
You guys, <br />
however, <br />
are nothing more <br />
than flag waving Nazis who, <br />
if you get your way, <br />
will end up making pre WW2 Germany <br />
look like a garden spot.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Please define the word <br />
we.<br />
<br />
I think Obama is good for the world<br />
and<br />
I am German.<br />
<br />
I think Mitt Romney<br />
should vote for Obama<br />
because then he maybe could also<br />
live the polygamous lifestyle<br />
like his grand-grandfather<br />
Miles.<br />
<br />
He should have enough money<br />
for doing that.<br />
(ever heard of the Cayman Islands)<br />

So, the progeny of genocidal Nazi feel they have the right to preach to Americans about who we should support for our president. How bizarrely ironic and absurd.

What did you say your father or grandfather was doing when the Jews were being gassed?

Hmmm, If I would be a Nazi,
I should vote for Romney, shouldn't I?

Because I can clearly remember
how Hitler refused to skake a Black Man's hand
Olympia 1936.

And by the way...

I don't have the right to preach
but the freedom of speech.

You are welcome!

The Lorax Will Open Debate @ How To Balance The Needs Of Business With Care For Nature<br />
<br />
See my last EP post @ that

Who gives a "****"? Apparently, you do.<br />
<br />
Considering that you are the author of this story, that you have responded to almost every comment on it, and that you took the time to join this group strictly for the purpose of being rude and disrespectful to the members here, it would be silly for you to pretend not to care at this point. <br />
<br />
I do, however, think it's a great idea for you to actually put your real life ahead of your obvious desire to make yourself a pain in the side of those you don't like online.<br />
<br />
To that end, I wish you well. :)

What's the matter coward?
Tired of having your *** handed you in every conversation?
If there is no restriction on INDIVIDUAL PRAYER, there is no lack of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in schools.
So why did you lie about lack of religious freedom?
Case closed!!

I'm not what you're talking about. You're behaving a bit like a crazy person. I wonder what it is about Conservatives that makes you feel so defensive..

Yawn...........bottom line is............who really gives a ****? If you'll pardon me, I'm going to move along. I still have an actual life to live.

I think we both know that I have not been guilty of doing that to you or anyone else on EP.<br />
<br />
But in the case that you are assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bigot, then I would suggest that perhaps you should research the definition of the word.<br />
<br />
It is not bigotry to expose a person who makes false and/or dramatic accusations as being guilty of rhetoric. If you make the decision to voice your negative opinions so brazenly, you should first be sure that they can be validated with facts. Otherwise, you only have yourself to blame when your words are called into question.

I direct you to the expose of your false statements 3 posts down.
Are you a bigot? I don't know.
Are you intelligent?

Seems unlikely.

I haven't made any false statements, sir. I have only challenged those that were already made.

"In the end, it appears to me that you find it perfectly acceptable behavior to paint anyone you don't like or agree with as evil or a villain."<br />
<br />

I'll hoist my glass to IT's post!.. WTG lady!.. Bill in Va.

Again, your accusations are false. You're exaggerating and being dramatic for the sake of making yourself appear right even though your allegations lack a factual basis. Most "intellectuals" would call that "rhetoric".<br />
<br />
Homosexuality will never again be illegal in this country, regardless of who the president or ruling party is. Children will never be "forced" to to pray, but there may actually be religious freedom again that would allow those children who DO wish to pray the ability to do so without being penalized, scolded or ostricized for it. Anyone who believes in true freedom and understands America's beginnings would know that this would be a great step towards enhancing freedom. <br />
<br />
As to coat hanger abortions, I never met a woman who was forced into one of those. To blame pro life people for such an inhumane act as using a coat hanger to destroy your own child is disgusting. More than 95% of all abortions are not as a result of rape or ******, but are rather the result of irresponsible sex acts on the part of the women. There is such a thing called birth control and when last I checked, Roe Vs. Wade had not been overturned when Conservative presidents took office.<br />
<br />
As to trickle down economics, you're entitled to your opinions on that but it may come as a shock to you that others are entitled to their opinions on it as well. There are experts on both sides of this talk that have a far better understanding of these things than you or I. <br />
<br />
In the end, it appears to me that you find it perfectly acceptable behavior to paint anyone you don't like or agree with as evil or a villain. You single out certain groups to direct your disdain at which include "whites", "Christians" and "nationalists". According to Merriam Webster, that is the working definition of the word "bigot". <br />
<br />
If you don't like bigotry, do not behave like a bigot. It doesn't take an intellectual to understand the concept of the golden rule.

False dichotomy (Logical fallacy)
Lack of mandatory or organized or state sponsored prayer is not "Lack of religious freedom".
Freedom to practice automatically excludes any COERCION.
Therefore: Either you LIED about religious freedom for children in school, or you are much too UNintelligent to make a logical argument.
As to Trickle Down economics, I posit a single reply.
30 years post Raygun, where are the jobs?
You lose.

I did not say anything about mandatory or state sponsored prayer. I spoke directly to the matter of children who DO wish to pray being allowed to do so without fear of being penalized, scolded, or ostricized for it. And yes, that would enhance religious freedom. You would agree with me as well if you were a religious person. If you are not, of course you wouldn't want to enhance religious freedom. I don't think that makes you "right". :)

Then you agree that there IS NO LACK OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Case closed, you are arguing with yourself.

When children in schools are told that Jesus is one topic they are not allowed to write about or draw picture of, that is an infringement of religious freedom for which we can thank ACLU types like you, bl.

1 More Response

I'm not saying white, Christian nationalists are Nazis. I'm saying they behave like Nazis. If they come to power, gays will be criminals again, children will be forced to pray in schools, and women will once again discover the joys of coat hanger abortions in back rooms. These are three of the reasons why white, Christian nationalists are so anti-intellectual. Another reason is intellectuals understand that your Trickle Down Economics is absolute BS.

OLGP.. I suggest you start provisioning your 1950's bomb shelter in light of the 2012 elections a short 12 months ahead. The latest experiment on "social justice" will be a closed chapter. Bill in Va.

I don't see how any of that validates your accusation that the members of this group are Nazi's for thinking Obama is dangerous for the country. Doublespeak is unbecoming of anyone, at any time.<br />
<br />
To put it into perspective for you, for every single president America has had in recent times, there have been those who felt that each president was "dangerous" for America. Whether that President was Republican or Democrat, and regardless of the political affiliations of those who disliked them, this has been true. <br />
<br />
In order for people to be concerned about Obama, they first have to care about America. Otherwise, why would they mind someone they feel is "dangerous" running the country? It is the democratic way to allow the citizens of this country to speak up if they're unhappy with their elected leaders -- not the "Nazi" way, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean to imply with that remark.<br />
<br />
When Bush was in office, the left said exactly the same thing about him and he was FAR more "Christian" than the current president. It's highly debatable whether or not Obama is even a follower of Christ by any stretch of the imagination, but that's neither here nor there.<br />
<br />
Your entire story is littered with negative, biased opinions and false accusation; and these seem to be the very things that you despise from those who feel Obama is dangerous.<br />
<br />
Don't you find that even a little bit ironic? <br />
<br />
It's never a good thing when pots take it upon themselves to hate kettles for being black.

Well, white Christian nationalists are as white Christian nationalists do. If the shoe fits, as it were.<br />
<br />
Almost every single proposal from this administration was originally a Republican proposal, including health care reform, so I might tend to agree with you that President Obama is dangerous for the country, because he's basically a moderate Republican.

You are obviously a pot smoking, kook-aid drinking moron OLGP!

I don't mind your opinions. I think they're ridiculous.. but I don't mind them.<br />
<br />
As for your claim that anyone who thinks Obama is dangerous for the country is a Nazi, well.. I'm wondering who the greater bigot is now. Us.. or you?

Well, at least I know the "morons" will win in the end, even if I won't be around to see it, because their political beliefs are founded on compassion and compassion will outlast everything. Oh, and how I see President Obama as a moderate, and a moderate Republican at that, is because every single one of his policies, including health care reform, was originally a Republican proposal. Don't you guys wonder what ever happened to all those moderate and liberal Republicans?

Yep will.....guess you are right again :-)

What I can't understand is why anyone would give the original moron who posted this more than a second of thought!.. Oops.. that took me 10 seconds.. Bill in Va.

TwylaMarie, you are 100 percent right on this. I'm still scratching my head how anyone with a love of the country could even think for a minute that obama is a moderate, completely escapes me. Seriously now!

Wow, it sure is good to see someone talking about how the other side is full of hate by calling them names.<br />
<br />
I'm sorry, but Obama isn't a moderate. Clinton was a moderate. Obama is not a moderate.

Free health care?... are you telling me doctors and nurses and hospitals are non-profit and don't receive a salary?... Someone is paying for it.. You are aware that millions of Americans, they are subject to testing for drug usage but those receiving government handouts have no such restrictions!.. Where is the fairness there?... We have become an entitlement society.. Bill in Va.

Maybe one of you could explain something to me, what is so wrong with wanting affordable health insurance? I work for a small company of 25 people, I pay 23% in taxes and then 25% of my take home pay goes to health insurance with united health care, then I get to pay a 25$ co-pay on doctor visits. If the US government can create a effective system like Canada or the UK, I would be all for it, because there is no way it would be as high as I am now paying for taxes plus insurance.<br />
<br />
Another equally important thing no body talks about is all the US jobs being lost over seas to countries like Ireland, UK, India and Canada. These countries all have universal health care and that means any US company moving over there would not have to pay insurance health care cost saving the millions of dollars on jobs that should be in the US if only we had universal health care. <br />
<br />
Look if I think if you want to stay with your over price health care you have every right to it, but if the rest of us want to go with a public option I do not think you should stand in the way of it. Why should US Congressmen and US Senators get so much better health care than the people that elected them into office?

I'm speaking as an outsider here but some of what's good for your country comes from outside. Goodwill, reputation, an inclination to trust and co-operate with the USA. These factors have improved a lot under Obama's presidency and done much to repair the damage done by his predecessor

Hey, I'm with you Grandpa. You make a great deal of sense (and we all have to vent now and then).

I tried sending you a message but EP is wanting a token because you post adult content, which the free speech part of me has a fit with. So, how about visiting my blog and we'll work off that to discuss ideas. How's that sound?

OLGP... Finally a tempered comment from ya. But how about you start a new thread as this one is getting way too long! Post a new one titled something like I tried to do. Mine is titled "A Sane Discussion on the TEA Party".. How about Libs - Convervs - Pro's & Cons. <br />
Once you set up your new thread, post one more hear with the link!<br />
<br />
But before I abandon this thread a couple of questions:<br />
Why can I do a search on here for the word HATE and I get George Bush, Republicans, TEA Party, country, Obama Bashers etc. Q 2. ( I surfed the first 400 groups and did find ONE "I Hate Liberals or whatever) Have you called out any of these people to temper their rhetoric? (I have done so with out of control conservatives). Bill in Va.

If I say, Socialism, and your mind slams shut, well, we're not going to have much of a civil conversation. Now, I may be a moron, that's definitely a possibility, but at least I'm willing to examine the merits of an unregulated corporate state, or even a totally unmanaged society, meaning the wild, wild west. I try to keep an open mind. At least I have that.<br />
<br />
Still, I'm old, and I'm prone to the occasional vent. I even say things I regret sometimes. My hearts in the right place, though. I only want the very best for everyone, and that includes Conservatives.<br />
<br />
Happy New Year, by the way.<br />
<br />
There are some things that really bug me about Conservatives, especially those white Christian Nationalists, who I see as being pretty much the same as their swastika wearing counterparts. True. I get fired up about that. I hate racism and bigotry. However, I'm willing to consider almost everything else.<br />
<br />
If you can explain to me how an Ayn Rand world will work so much better than any form of government, I'll sit and listen and consider everything you say. However, since I started out in life as an Ayn Rand fan, I now see her as the elitist she was. She viewed the public as being little more than tree hugging slugs who want nothing more than to drain wealth from those who deserve it so much more, the industrialists. So I hope you'll excuse me for not being overly excited.<br />
<br />
Something else bugs me about you folks on the Right. You always see the worst in everyone. On the other hand, they don't call use "bleeding heart liberals" for nothing. I'll give you that. We err on the side of seeing the best in everyone. Perhaps we're both wrong there.<br />
<br />
But I don't see government as being inherently evil. Government is just a system of management. You get out of it exactly what you put in. I don't see business and corporations as being inherently evil either. I do believe Capitalism is incredibly wasteful, though, but that's only because it's fueled by greed. I see that as little different from a corrupt government wallowing in bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
I'm willing to continue this discussion, without the name calling, of course, but I'd prefer we stick with our personal philosophies rather than trying to drown each other with details and "facts." Just explain to me, from a Conservative point of view, what you think we should be doing, what methods we should be using to solve the country's problems, and go ahead and describe the Conservative life we should be living. I'll respond with how I see things.<br />
<br />
Can we do that?