Let the Hate Begin

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. The utterly irresponsible promotion and inciting of hatred at the Republican rallies is equally despicable and stupid – perhaps even bordering on criminal.

According to the North Caroline Fayetteville Observer
Someone slashed the tires of at least 30 vehicles parked outside the Crown Coliseum on Sunday during a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, authorities said.

Sheriff’s deputies are investigating. The tires were cut while people were inside the Crown Coliseum listening to speeches, said Maj. E. Wright of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office…

Sarah Revis, who lives on Wilkes Road, said the slashed tires left several women, including a single mother and a toddler, stranded and upset. At least four tow trucks were sent to move the vehicles from the Crown, Revis said.

“This is an embarrassment to this city and to me as a citizen,” Revis said. “I’ve seen women out here crying and men cussing. This is a crying shame.”


This self righteous anti-American horseshit has just got to stop. Someone please tell the Republicans that they are destroying our country, one rally at a time.


  1. lil' perkette says:

    I find it pathetic that it has come to this. We as Americans should work together to better the US rather then resort to slashing tires. What are we in high school again? If Republicans have to slash tires, they obviously have no control and this just further proof how stupid they can be. And they think they can control the country… :doh:

  2. Edgar says:

    Help me understand the liberal mind set by explaining how you came to the conlusion that republican did this. From what you’ve written my little tiny brain is having a hard time connecting those dots.

    Last year, someone went up and down our road and slashed tires left and right. It must have been a hateful republican LMAO!! LMAO!!

  3. perkiset says:

    Uh, yeah Edgar. Dems and Independents did it. Nice work.

    Are you kidding me? Do you not listen to the kind of hate that is being propagated and incited by the Republican ticket at the moment? Are you blind and deaf to egregious lack of respect, the blatant hatred, the focusing of people’s biases for political purpose? Are you really that stuck that you cannot see this?

    I’ll help you understand the Liberal mindset: it’s progressive, thinking and concerned about our COUNTRY rather than selfish and concerned about maintaining an ugly and antiquated status quo. Within it exist the tools to bring us out of this most ugly time in our history.

  4. Edgar says:

    Hey perk,


    Hey, I found an old political blog I started (one post only) back in march. I made some good predictions so read it.

    I will comment here guys if I feel that my comments are just too long and hoggish for your blogs (you and perk).

    Check it out.

    I feel funny about making my comments too long.

    I really don’t go to any other political blogs besides you and donkey (again, I hate consevative blogs, weird huh?)

    Troll my damn blog would ya :)

  5. perkiset says:

    BTW Edgar – when I said “Please tell the Republicans that they are ruining our country one rally at a time” it was more directed at the fact that their spewage is directly responsible for the kind of hatred that is seeping of of their rallies – it may be looneys that are doing the tire slashing, but that’s the point and why this is so irresponsible.

    By being the way they are, they have subtly given the nod to nutjobs that may have REAL nastiness on their mind, and I don’t know about you, but harming a president or presidential nominee is NO WAY to change our country. The subtle “It’s OK” that they have allowed to permeate their side of things is despicable, irresponsible and, as I mentioned, borderline criminal. If anything should (God Forbid) happen to our next president, they should be convicted of inciting the act.

  6. Edgar says:

    WOOOOAAA! What happened to free speech? Its ok to burn the flag but it is unacceptable to ask obama some tough questions?

    Did you ever think that perhaps, just as the left is angry and hateful toward america and the right, that some on the right were already angry before mccain became the nominee? The cultural divide is moving farther and farther apart in this country. The left is and has been becoming more and more extreme for the last 40 years. While the right has gone somewhat left. Now the people who used to be on the right are considered extreme and what used to be considered moderate is now considered right.

  7. perkiset says:

    Where in the frigging world did I assault free speech? What are you talking about? Are you insinuating that slashing tires is some form of free speech?

    There is a radical difference between asking tough questions, which is absolutely appropriate and I am in full support of and simply slinging shit. The angry, false and hateful blather that is coming from the right is not in the line of “question” at all… it is targeted and deceptive slander, aimed solely at strengthening racist and frightened opinions.

    The left is “Hateful and angry at America?” Who the hell do you listen to? The LEFT is moving farther and becoming more extreme? Good lord Edgar, you have become completely assimilated by the Borg. In fact, it is the RIGHT that has moved to the extreme, and there are precious few left resources left in the country. Middle of the Road has become labeled as “leftists” and anything not in lock step with Bush has become labeled “Liberal” as if it’s a 4 letter word. This is not my opinion – read anyone with half a brain and you will see how silly that assertion is. Today, the Left would be happy with dead middle, which seems like a wildly optimistic goal, frankly.

    Do you consider yourself “moderate?” because you’re pretty hard core, and if you’re moderate then it should be manifest even to you how things have moved.

  8. braindonkey says:

    Slashing tires = tough questions? I don’t get it?

  9. Edgar says:

    “Where in the frigging world did I assault free speech? What are you talking about? Are you insinuating that slashing tires is some form of free speech?”

    “Do you not listen to the kind of hate that is being propagated and incited by the Republican ticket at the moment?”

    By hate I assume you mean the talking points of the mccain campaign. If we can agree on that then I’ll explain.

    Notice the reflexive way you liberals manipulate the ‘H’ word. McCain is guilty of ‘hate speech’ but flag burning, in your convoluted way of thinking is *not* hate speech.

    I really think it’s beyond a stretch to call the mccain talking points ‘hate speech’

    But then again, like the aclu, you liberals just LOVE to hide behind your self righteous definition of ‘hate speech’ It’s on a sliding scale I guess.

    My point is that you are not supporting John McCains right to free speech. You have conveniently labeled it ‘hate speech’

    Hate speech for liberals is kind of like “goalies” when kids play tag. You know, it’s that place you can run too where you are safe from getting tagged.

    So there is where you were trouncing on free speech. I wonder if the aclu would, like I am, defend mccains right to free speech or if they would condemn it like you.

  10. perkiset says:

    Edgar: the allowance for even the inference that Obama is a terrorist, or hangs out with terrorists, or is a Muslim, or wants to teach Kindergartners sex education is lies and specifically targeted to a hate response.

    It is a lie that he is a terrorist.
    It is a lie that he pals around with terrorists. Well, if you want to say that because he has association with Ayers, then he, among a great many men and women from both parties hang out with terrorists. But that would be a stretch at best.
    He is not a muslim, and even if he was, so what? The inference though, is that in some way he’s an anti-american muslim terrorist. Horrible.
    He does not want to teach kindergartners sex education. But the ad that ran making him look like Uncle Ernie hunting a bunch of little white boys was just horrible.

    And what do we call John McCain?
    More of the same Bush.
    (Whew, that’s really insulting.)
    Confused, irrational and compulsive.
    (Wow, really threw the gauntlet down there.)
    A serial deregulator.
    (Holy shit! Them’s fightin’ words!)

    This is not about liberal or conservative or anything like that, and it’s a sign of how weak your argument is that you use it this way. I was APPALLED and horrified that Bush started a whisper campaign that McCain had fathered a black baby. The way they treated Cindy during that primary was beyond horrible. McCain was treated to the worst kind of slander in the name of politics, and he swore that he’d never do it.

    Now that he is losing, he’s sold his soul and what little honor he had left to try anything and everything to get elected.

    The most egregious insult, however, is when epithets are hurled at their rallies and they just let them fly. Now that the public outcry has been loud enough, they’ve begun to get a little more conservative about what they let be said, but still, they implicitly say they agree when they do not aggressively decry outbursts like “Terrorist” and “Kill Him.” Theire incendiary speeches have grown the brazenness of that sort of hooligan, and it is this very hate that McCain is now hoping will lead him to the White House.

    Not policy, not a better plan, not even being more likeable.

    Hatred of Obama, and fear that he is a radical Muslim terrorist.

    Sorry man, you can try all the logic you want about how we Liberals have our panties in a bunch, but logic and the facts bear out that John McCain has burrowed beneath the low road. He’s become as despicable as the man that insulted him so nastily 8 years ago.

  11. Edgar says:

    “Edgar: the allowance for even the inference that Obama is a terrorist, or hangs out with terrorists, or is a Muslim, or wants to teach Kindergartners sex education is lies and specifically targeted to a hate response.”

    Perk, lets be intellectually honest here. The left has been calling ‘mr bush’ a terrorist for nearly 8 years! Try to deny that if you can. The left has been hurling words like ‘nazi’ at george bush for years.

    Again, this is way too easy. Don’t you think about this stuff before you write? Talk about an easy target :D

    See, an undeniably true and fitting response such as the one I just gave, completely exposes your argument as the empty rhetoric that it is. No fancy words needed.

    It’s ok for the left to call bush a nazi and terrorist for 8 long years but that’s ok. Freedom of speech. I’m sure those patriotic american lefties (not the right) who called bush a terrorist were NOT trying to incite hate or violence.

    But it’s a WHOLE ‘Nother Story when it comes to Obama. I mean, I could see if it was GWB who was hanging with Bill Ayers or Yasser Arrafat that someone might have the right to desecrate the Office by calling the standing president a terrorist but no.

    It was not bush who hung with terrorist, he killed them by the boat loads! It is Obama who has earned the right to be merely questioned about his connections to radical activists and yes, terrorists.

    So the libs call the guy who hunts and kills terrorists a terrorist. And that OK. Just dandy. Freedom of speech, just ask the aclu. But the guy who hangs with terrorists and enjoys tea with terrorists is beyond reproach!

    you didn’t hear GWB whining about hate speech from the left did you?

    This is a classic example of how a liberal first comes to a conclusion and then traces backward to invent the logic. Breathtaking hypocrisy!

    Next up from perk: “2+2 does not equal 4 and 0+0= not 0″

  12. perkiset says:

    See here’s the difference, and why you think it’s an easy target: you have no understanding of difference.

    Bush HAS been an imperialistic asshole, having trounced a country we had no business sacking, caught us up in a perpetual war that has killed and maimed thousands and thousands and has done in it the name of a lie. We as a country HAVE IN FACT terrorized a great deal of the middle east for our own oil requirements and flow control – to deny that is simply silly.

    McCain supported this effort.

    Compare that with ANYTHING in Obama’s past man. Association with an unrepentant terrorist? Well, if you’ve got to, then he is in good company because there are a great deal of big names from both sides of the aisle and the business world that now are in the same places he is. Don’t even TRY to confuse the notion that Obama having served on the same board of directors as Ayers is equivalent IN ANY WAY to the kind of mass murder that George Bush & Co. has caused.

    It is fair to call an imperialist warmonger and imperialist warmonger. It is not fair to call someone who is neither those things, particularly when the way you do it is specifically designed to cause the kind of hate response we see on TV. What are you not seeing about the dangers of a hate filled vengeful group of people?

    Now, back to hate: I put that cartoon on the front page just for you Edgar. It is to remind us that those that forget history are DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. You’d lump the notion of flag burning into the same category as the hatred that causes war, pain, suffering and murder. It is your attitudes and blind spots that would allow such an atrocity to occur again, were it not for cooler heads.

    Hypocrisy? Laughable. Edgar you use pseudo-logic to soothe your vague discomfort about the fact that we as a country have become murderers, thieves and arrogantly so. Yet rather than point the finger accurately at where it belongs, the right wing has been using racial stereotypes and subconscious anger-drivers to move the populace into a place of unwilling accomplice to murder. It is easier to create irrational anger towards Barack Hussein Obama because his name fits the profile than it is to deal correctly with George W. Bush, John McCain, the likes of Sarah Palin and finally to you.

    If you stand behind the actions of these murderers, hate mongers, liars and thieves, you are complicit.

  13. braindonkey says:

    Edgar, why do you insist on ignoring context? If a random man walks up to you, and he says “i am going to punch you in the face”, you would assume he is going to mug you, beat you, and that he is a bad man. Of course, if you are in a boxing ring, he’s just doing business.

    Calling Obama a terrorist by itself is not a problem, and frankly I don’t care about that one alone, much like bush. No one actually thinks bush is a terrorist, and I can say that because of context. The problem in Obamas case is that he is not being called only a terrorist. He has been called/called for:
    muslim terrorist
    Kill him
    Off with his head

    No one has publicly called for the murder of Bush. Sure, many have probably said it in their own living room, just like every other politician in the world, but not out loud.

    No on is publicly calling for the murder of McCain.

    But they are publicly calling for the murder of Obama.

    The one argument you keep making is that free speech is free speech, no questions asked. And I agree with you. However, you forget, that free speech can be responded to, with more free speech. The point of free speech is to allow discourse and commentary. McCain has every right to keep his mouth shut and not denounce those calls for murder. But do you want that guy to be your president? He also, like anyone else in the crowd, has the right to denounce the calls for murder, yet he and his cohorts do not. Freedom of speech is your right, to put your personal opinion out there, for anyone to see, and as a result, to be responded to. The lack of response is generally understood to be agreement.

  14. Edgar says:

    “Bush HAS been an imperialistic asshole, having trounced a country we had no business sacking, caught us up in a perpetual war that has killed and maimed thousands and thousands and has done in it the name of a lie. We as a country HAVE IN FACT terrorized a great deal of the middle east for our own oil requirements and flow control – to deny that is simply silly.”

    Perk, you have the right to say this. And others have the right to say what they want about obama.

    I’m not going to argue the case for war with iraq again as we have covered that already. It’s a difference of opinion.

    Point is, you and the rest of the liberals shouldn’t be whining about mccains talking points being hate speech when you say more hateful things about conservatives like bush.

    That is the single point I’m making.

  15. perkiset says:

    To jump onto your bandwagon NB…

    Freedom of speech is limited when it infers harming a government official, this is the law. If you say “I’m going to 1xn@y the 9r3sid3nt” you’re going to get into a lot of hot water. Why? Because you are threatening a government official. So is this a suppression of free speech, or is it a valid reaction to something that is NOT PROTECTED SPEECH?

    The KKK can stand on a box and scream at the top of their lungs, I despise you, you are a moron, you are son of satan, you are unAmerican, your religion is wrong and filled with idiots, etc etc… and I will stand in absolute protection of their right to be idiots.

    But when they cross the line to, “and you should be killed” then they have crossed the line from THEIR freedoms into mine [or the person they are assaulting]. This is the essence of Liberty – that it is equalizing for all parties and ensures that your liberties do not impinge upon mine.

    And it is where the line must be drawn. It is a common fallacy of pseudo-Libertarians that they should be allowed to do ANYTHING because this is real freedom. I submit that freedom in a society is actually freedom up to the point of concessions we make so that we can actually HAVE a society – things like red lights and stop signs, laws against hurting one another and bans on playing ABBA in public.

    It is not “Free Speech” to incite violence, infer danger upon others or threaten other’s well being. So Edgar your next statement will be, well Obama hung with one of the Weathermen! He has an association with a man who did those things and has paid his price. Obama did not do them. George Bush did them, John McCain supported him and wants to keep supporting that effort. There is a mightly clear difference, and to NBs point, context is everything.

  16. Edgar says:

    Where am I out of context? It truly wasn’t intentional this time.

    I don’t know why you need everything to be in context. Can’t you make a simple statement and have it be true?

    I agree with your version of free speech I think for the most part, if not in it’s entirety.

    What I disagree with is that you easily allow the rhetoric at mccain rallies to be classified as hate speech. No one said, “I want to KO(*&O OBama” did they?

    Hey Perk, think of this. If someone had stood up to hitler when he was on the way up and said, “Does this guy actually want to be an evil dictator?”

    Is that hate speech? So what if people might think that Obama is a terrorist. They have the right to think that and the right to ask questions.

  17. perkiset says:

    I COMPLETELY agree about asking questions, I don’t disagree with you here at all. In fact, probably the largest problem with Americans today is that they take what they hear at face value, rather than even doing a tiny bit of due diligence, or even running it through their own processor for a little logic checking.

    @ %$#% 0bama: Yes. Beyond the simple “Terrorist” type slander, there was a now-well-publicized rally where after John McCain said something like what do we need to do, someone shouted “Kill Him” and McCain just smiled – Actually, I do not now remember if it was a McCain or Palin rally. But it got a LOT of play because the candidate did not address it and shut it down – but that was the impetus (it is believed) for when McCain was at a rally later that week and a woman said “He’s a Muslim” and he shut her down and told her she was wrong – perhaps, to his credit, his old self came back for a bit.

    Quite simply, there can be anger at Obama rallies, but on balance, there is a lot more hope, optimism and respectful disagreement. The few times that someone has popped off about McCain, Obama has been quick and firm about it.

    I am not saying that we suddenly need to be all polite and non-political, not only would that be stupidly idealistic, it’d just be contrary to the nature of the process. It’s what we allow to be said about other people that must be addressed. If someone came to my board here and called you an idiot, I’d post a :popcorn: and sit back and watch you take care of yourself. But if someone made a comment about addressing you in a physical or imposing way, I’d be on that shit so fast it’d make my server’s head spin.

    Now, at Obama as a Terrorist: There is a huge difference between saying that John McCain is old and erratic, and calling a person a terrorist. Being old and erratic is not only natural, it’s really fair game on the campaign trail. I’d equate that sort of attack to Obama’s experience. But when you say that Obama is in some way associated with killing people, you’ve crossed a line that is so breathtakingly untrue and lumps him into a whole different basket. Why? Because we need to go either kill or bring terrorists to justice. So allowing it to be out there that Obama is a terrorist IMPLIES this sort of thing to nutjobs. Smart people will not fall prey to this sort of baloney. But morons will hear it and do stupid, dangerous and unpredictable things.

    All that is necessary for evil to take hold is for good men to stand by and do nothing. There is a political process, and then there’s a kind of slander that is just really wrong for a potential president of the United States.

    I’d like to address your Hitler comment, but I’m out of time I’m afraid… :)

  18. Edgar says:

    Well by that logic, every time a left wing nut called bush a terrorist then he is guilty of exactly the same kind of incitement. Yet you heard no outcry from the left. They were conspicuously silent. Again, that is my point. Why all the phony outrage. Really now, come back down to earth.

  19. braindonkey says:

    skip the terrorist yelling then, since you can’t seem to see the difference between calling someone a terrorist who has actually committed or guided death and destruction, vs someone who just knew someone who did it (or hell even hung out if you want to believe that). Just address the “kill him” (2 separate occasions) and “off with his head” shouts. Those are calls for murder by your standard of words just meaning what they mean, without context. In context, they are exactly the same.

    I also find it disturbing that the gop equates muslim with terrorist. That is not good. It’s that line of thinking that got an Indian Sikh killed here in AZ just after 911. Oh! he’s wearing a turban, he must be a muslim terrorist kill him! Information is dangerous in the hands of the ignorant.

  20. Edgar says:

    “skip the terrorist yelling then, since you can’t seem to see the difference between calling someone a terrorist who has actually committed or guided death and destruction, vs someone who just knew someone who did it (or hell even hung out if you want to believe that).”

    Bush guided death and destruction therefore he is a terrorist? This is getting to be ridiculous. Now every nation in the world is a terrorist nation since they have all been at war at one time or another.

    Let’s embarrass your point shall we? Abe Lincoln was a terrorist. He guided death and destruction. Franklin Roosevelt was a terrorist because he guided death and destruction.

    And you talk about ME taking things out of proper context! LMAO!!

    I see, it’s ok to call bush a terrorist because HE IS. He guided death and destruction therefore he is a terrorist.

    No a terrorist is someone like Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Bill Ayers, Saddam Hussein (he funded families of suicide bombers in Israel and publicly bragged about it).

    It’s laughable to suggest that the president of the USA who launched a war on terror in retaliation of a terrorist attack on our nation, is a terrorist because he guided death and destruction.

    Bush kills terrorists, Obama has tea with terrorists and those are the big ugly facts you can’t get around.

    @Kill Him

    McCain didn’t say it and has openly rebuked his own supporters at these rallies.

    You are worried about mccain supporters yelling kill him but your not worried about obama supporters killing people (ayers)

    I feel like I’m debating Alan Colmes.

  21. perkiset says:

    Wait, wait: Bush did not “launch a war to stop terror and kill terrorists” – that is a well know fallacy, proven time and again by history. Even Republicans now say, “OK, but we’re there now, so what do we do?”

    Bush started a war for the financial gain of the oil industries. It is well known that within hours of the attacks on 9/11 he was looking for a way to tie Iraq into it, irrespective of the fact that they had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

    It is fair, in a way, to say that Bush is not a terrorist and I’d agree – provided that you can agree he is an imperialist and through his lying unitarialism has unjustly caused the death and/or maiming of dozens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis. See? We can find common ground: we just need to use different nomenclature to describe what Bush is and we all agree.

  22. Edgar says:

    To me an imperialist nation is Russia. They go to war, they conquer and keep land. Then they put up walls to keep the people in.

    The US did not do that in iraq. We didn’t not keep land. We are PAYING BILLION in reconstruction. Saddam earned his fate. He fed too many people into the human sized pencil sharpeners.

    Clinton was not an imperialist either when he bombed kosovo and serbia, oh, and Iraq too.

    If Iraq became the 51st state then I would say it’s imperialism. Japan was a imperialist nation before ww2. That is imperialism.

    Just because a strong country goes to war doesn’t make them by default imperialists. It’s the mindset of conquer and keep that is imperialism. We don’t do that.

    In fact, we have a good record as a nation who fights along side the little guy against the imperialists.

    But you can’t see that because you’ve been brainwashed.

  23. braindonkey says:

    Edgar, you know what you just reminded me of.

    That simpsons episode where they all joined the cult and Bart was kicking ass in school because he gave the “right” answer of “our great leader” to everything. Like who made the sky blue, our great leader. Why does an apple fall to the ground from a tree, our great leader willed it.

    Ironically, your claims of brainwashing are reflective at best.

  24. perkiset says:

    ROFLMAO – I’m the one brainwashed?

    So your interpretation of imperialism is context sensitive? Sorry Edgar, you’re just wrong here and splitting hairs. There’s no requirement for us to make Iraq a state for it to be imperialism. We’re there taking what we want – or more correctly, a few are and siphoning off the profits to themselves.

    We did it for our national benefit, no grand notion of spreading democracy or even as base as protecting ourselves from terrorism – we did it for oil and profits. Imperialism at the core. We’re not “fighting alongside the little guy” – you’re the one that is blind to the much larger picture of what we are doing – you’ve been convinced by the tiny screen movies of a single person being helped by US forces, rather than looking at the macro intention and ramifications.

    You are convinced by a tiny emotional ploy rather than the logic of why we’d move such force into the region.

  25. Edgar says:

    “So your interpretation of imperialism is context sensitive? ”

    No it is not.

    Main Entry:
    im·pe·ri·al·ism Listen to the pronunciation of imperialism

    1: imperial government, authority, or system2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions ”

    Think Russia, Japan, Germany, Rome.

  26. trex says:

    Wow, I have to say that I am very disappointed… I stumbled upon this site when I was researching Apple innovations and really thought you (Perkiset) were quite a learned and reasonable man – now I read all these far left talking points and I have to say, well, I was wrong. Every progressive I know thinks they are, but in reality they are some of the most closed minded people I know. You started all this with a news item about slashed tires -do you want me to list all the vandalism by so called progressives, this is your area of expertise? Every other day I get a sign ripped out of my lawn, my neighbors too – but the Obama signs are always fine… For you or anyone to support a person who is unknown, untested, hides whole blocks of his life i.e. where is any info on his college days? how did a person like Obama get into Harvard? Is his cousin in Kenya responsible for genicide? Heck, the stuff we do know is enough to scare any reasonable person. Please tell me you a little curious about this guy, or do you just want a Dem in the white house no matter what – And don’t let me get started on Biden, Obama might as well be running with a cardboard cut out. For Lefties to be blind to the fact that Palin is so much more experienced than Obama and to treat her with such disrespect while giving Obama a pass on everything is amazing to me. Well, I know this will get no where with you, I don’t know why I even bothered, but it’s just sad that you have absolutely no intellectual honesty when it comes to politics. One last point, if he does win, you have no one but yourself to blame, and I will come back here in a year or so and remind you of your great choice.

  27. perkiset says:

    Wow Trex – A pass for Obama/Biden and a hard time for McCain/Palin. Lefties are blind to the fact that Palin is so much more experienced than Obama? This isn’t one of my buddies just baiting me, right?

    First off, thanks for visiting and I hope you’ll visit The Cache, my technology forum here at the site as well. I’d hope that we can all get past politics for the better discussions of technology ;) Click the The Cache link at the top, you’ll get right there.

    But now back to your post. “How did a person like Obama get into Harvard?” You may as well complete that sentence and ask why the press isn’t further researching the fact that he was #1 in his class and the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Clearly, Affirmative Action is just WAY out of control here.

    Or perhaps not. Perhaps Obama is a brilliant man with the right character to lead our nation into the next cycle – perhaps he’s a man that holds We The People more dear than his corporate cronies.

    “It’s just sad that you have absolutely no intellectual honesty when it comes to politics.” Good lord. Amazing. “If he does win, you’ll have no one but yourself to blame” hmmm… so does that mean you take responsibility for the current financial collapse, the perpetual war in Iraq and the complete loss of respect by other countries for America?

    Do you take responsibility for where we are today, or is it YOU that have “absolutely no intellectual honesty when it comes to politics?”

    Since you’ve started by eloquently insulting me let me simply repay the favor: How would someone as clearly ignorant about the workings of our country, economics and international diplomacy know a “learned and reasonable man” if one fell on you? You’ll not find answers watching Fox and listening to Rush Trex. You’ll only find words that support your clear and irrational anger.

    I wish you peace – sounds like you could use it.

  28. vsloathe says:

    “I don’t know why you need everything to be in context. Can’t you make a simple statement and have it be true?”

    No. Read up a bit on postmodernism and how your Modern worldview has failed utterly and is ultimately responsible for things like The Holocaust.