TigermothII comments

My main concern is how can anyone really be interested in electing someone who wants to try and rewind social progress several hundred years.

Well the problem here is that you likely read the liberal press and come to the erroneous conclusion that a Republican presidential candidate has any desire to reverse social progress. The average liberal will define the average conservative as be 'stupid, racist and backwards' which of course is total BS promoted by their self-righteous hypocrisy that they are somehow more enlightened and smarter than everyone else. And if you don't agree with them then you must be a knuckle-dragger. In truth they hold the same stupidities, racism and class-ism issues that all Americans have to varying degrees. They over-compensate for this by deriding the rest of us with their ill-placed feelings of superiority. Pay no attention - research and think for yourself and don't believe everything that you read.

“And when young women graduate, they should get equal pay for equal work.”

Ah, but the problem becomes that when these young women graduate, if Obama is still President they will not be able to find work.

Obama wiped the floor with Romeny on the 16th. He had more facts on point in the first debate despite the weak perception. Biden mopped up the floor with Ryan in the VP debate.

You seem to be alone in your perception of this. Good luck with that. You liberals love polls, and your own (from the liberal media) don't jibe with the picture you're trying to paint. Makes you guys nervous, doesn't it? And I don't care if Biden wins every debate - that creepy old guy is just too out there to ever become President.

So where does that leave us? The election is clear. You can choose "Mitt happens" or you can choose a president that is motivated, envigorated, inspired and telling the truth. Obama doesn't just happen, he gets out there and deals with reality and makes things happen.

Ha! So what exactly has he made happen in these past four years? Except forcing bad legislation and crappy foreign policy decisions?

The topic is Romney's complete inability to directly answer a simple question about equal pay for women.

If you are claiming that conditions in the Obama White House justifies Romney totally evading the question of equal pay, that's a very illogical and foolish attempt at deflection.

No, the topic of the article is the President using a debate answer to promote himself as being the better candidate for women in the workplace. If there are articles written by insiders that indeed show that the President promotes no such atmosphere in his own shop, then I think they are more than pertinent. It's just that anything that shows your candidate in a poor light is not to be permitted in the liberal world of argument.

Heh, looking forward to yet another day of watching Mitt's hyper desperate "supporters" trying to spin yet another of Mitt's verbal screw-ups.

Face it chin-stroking conservative types - Mitt is an idiot.

Funny how that works; if your candidate says something stupid - and he certainly has - it is just a misinterpretation and no big deal. If the other side says it, they are an idiot. Interesting that everyone is paying so much attention to the binder comment, but not as much focus on the fact that Mitt was actually correct, and the Prez didn't call the Benghazi thing a terrorist attack - but the liberal cow of a moderator screwed that up. They've been quite clever in deflecting away from that - but it shall still bite them in the end (literally and figuratively).

Mitt is an idiot. Hmm. That 'idiot' managed to run a business and make more money than you ever could in ten lifetimes. Shade better than being a community organizer I should think. Apparently unless your a liberal that is.

I doubt Hillary Clinton was in a “binder full of women" when president Obama offered his former arch enemy a top job in his administration.

As homely as she is, I doubt it as well. Uugh - it's time to go back to the makeup. Sushe you seem to be obsessed with the binder thing, which apparently the libs are trying to make into much ado about nothing. Sounds more to me like the desperate attempts to deflect away from the fact that your boy has nothing new to present. Four years of failure will be followed by four more years of failure if Obama is elected. We can call that a binder full of BS.

Romney does not even have the support of his own party!

Explain to me exactly how you come to this brilliant conclusion. I think most Republicans would rather see Maxwell the Geico pig become president that Obama.

Explain why the women who works for Obama get paid less than their male counterpart?

No one has presented any evidence that this is case.

Actually I believe it's public information that you can look up.

Yes, it does. 'Cause Omama won.

'Omama' might have won somewhere, Obama showed nothing new except that he can feign indignity. And he has no clue how he's going to get America out of its current morass. So sad for you - and so sad for all of us that he's so lame.

Yeah, the Deep South. And Texas.

Meaning, white racists whose states DONT MATTER for the electoral college, just as California dont either.

Despite the obvious grammatical errors (I thought you liberals were brilliantly smart) - I take issue with the constant liberal bashing of the south. I'm from the south, and have since moved north. Trust me when I say that there are easily just as many - if not more - ignorant white racists (and black racists, let's not forget them) in the north. Obviously you're no Rhodes Scholar either, so perhaps think before you write such sweeping, untrue and unfairly hypocritical rubbish.

Don't you realize that this is precisely why Obama won the debate. He spoke of plans for the next 4 years, and the future of America, whereas Romney had no plans for the future, and could only keep looking back...he even went on about Reagan AGAIN.

Yes, but can you really win a debate when your plans for the next four years are the SAME as your plans of the last four years - which haven't worked? Romney was simply pointing out that they had not worked so that the intelligent conclusion could be drawn that four more years of the same will not work. Mitt has clearly outlined is plans. 'He went back to Reagan AGAIN' - really, are you really going to sit there as a democrat and say that??? How many times have your lot referenced JFK? Oh, I'd say about a billion. And for that matter you can't stop talking about Bush long enough to explain why your man is accomplishing relatively nothing. Bit of pot calling the kettle black on that one I should say.

Mark Twain said that it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.

Yes, and a lot of fools have been fooled for four years - enough of that already.

sorry, Tebow 'won' some games - jeesh

Hey, at least Tebow one some games. I would tend to disagree with you that the economic downfall was all the part of the Republican party, but even putting that aside the point is what have the Democrats done - and what is the current sitting Democrat President doing to alleviate the situation. After four years his policies have been ineffective, and in my view (and that of many others) detrimental to fixing the situation. His plan seems to be for more of the same. So for all of his talk of hope and change, the inexperienced community organizer cum junior senator from Illinois has no real solution that will be effective for America. I will put my faith and vote in a man who at least is capable of running a business quite successfully. The way forward in our capitalist democracy is through promoting business, not hindering it and pushing through crappy and harmful legislation. My view, my pig, my farm. To each his own, and we'll see in a short time.

Ah Yabits, haven't seen you in a while my friend. Leave it to you to start the lame old 'it's all evil George W's fault, inherited a mess, blah, blah, blah. It's four years later - get over it and do something for god's sake. We've jumped from basketball to football, but okay - it's time to get rid of Gabbert and put in Manning (prefer Eli as I'm a NYorker).

Despite your eloquent posting Jaiegh I would hardly call it a dunk worthy of MJ (and I'm old enough to have seen him play in college in the day when Ralph Sampson of UVA was in competition). Check the ultra-liberal MSNBC link put up above - a good many of the undecideds indicated they were going for Romney after the debate. And even CNN - another liberal rag - states that they were about even. I might even agree with you that the President got in a few more jabs - but it wasn't a TKO landslide by any stretch. The Prez still said nothing of substance that would persuade those fed up with his lackluster 4 years to run to his banner. If that's your version of a slam dunk, you must be playing in the European leagues.

Seriously - and I really don't know the answer - how are the moderators for these debates chosen? I know it's seen by the liberals as being a crybaby - but you get a dude from PBS and now this woman? My HS debate teacher could have been a more impartial moderator. I know it's difficult not to have some awe of the office, but come on. Who's on deck for the third one - George Clooney?

One would think that what you say is true Laguna, but never overestimate the intelligence of the American people. I can't count the number of times I've sent out an email, only to have the recipients read just the first sentence, or sat through meetings where catch phrases were the participant's only information on a topic. In our 'honey-booboo' society where more people are concerned about the results of dancing with the stars than any political election, it's unsafe to think that many folks know much about anything.

Ubikwit - typical liberal mentality - 'all Republicans are vile and we are the chosen ones'. You don't know me dude. You know what they say about assumptions.

JTDanman - boy I can practically see you dancing giddy little circles - calm down, the fat lady hasn't done her thing yet.

All the libs and CNN and the 'insta-polls' will be drooling on how Obama slammed dunked it and now has the election in the bag. Horse-hockey as Colonel Potter used to say. I would grant you that the President might have won this one by just a bit. But in truth, on the matters that really, well, matter the President didn't say anything that should make undecided voters suddenly think he's the answer to the problem. As Mr. Romney calmly pointed out, this administration has failed to do much of what it claimed it would do, and has failed to solve our economic morass. Lots of blame - but the blame game has worn thin and folks are looking for answers. The President playing the angry man did what he wanted to do. He sort of won the debate by being the dominant, indignant forceful personality. But after the smoke of his fist shaking and accusations end, what did he really say of substance that he's going to do differently to affect change that will bring our economy around? The big, fat nothing. He said at one point that his administration 'had tried'. But they have failed, and the facts support this.

Folks are giving him points for the Libya thing; despite Romney's f-up on that one, the basic facts and accusations against the administration are still true and valid - that Mitt didn't present the argument correctly does not somehow make the facts less than true. That's the problem with a debate - in theory they're great in concept for letting the public get to know the candidates on their policies and agendas. But in our need to proclaim a 'clear winner' we lose something of the substance of what is being said. Instead it becomes who can yell the loudest and get the zingers in. And libs you can't deny that. Your boy was comatose the first time around, but I'm certain you would offer that isn't a measure of what he's capable of, but rather just an off night. Yes, there are three of them to kind of balance things out (hopefully). But with the American voting public who too often grasps at catch-phrases and talking points rather than researching real policy and political ideology, it does create pause.

I know, that sounds like I'm crying in my beer because my side didn't get the 'win' card in this debate. But I think these debates are becoming too much of a circus of who can out-perform who (old man Biden and his wild smiling and smirking) and who can ridicule and shout down the other. At times Romney was trying to stick pieces of failed Obama policy onto discussion points where they had no bearing except to bring them up. And the President looked like he was one step away from calling a street fight throw-down rather than his usual more smooth and dignified bearing. And who here believes that the black guy who asked a question was 'undecided'? I would bet my paycheck and my favorite pair of jeans that his vote was going for Obama all along. Racist? Well, a group of black friends on Facebook were talking about how they would vote for the President based upon the simple point that he is black, so I call 'em as I see 'em.

Well Mad, the last two add to my list stating that Biden was the hands up champ. JTDan, if you go by all of the polls (and I always mistrust them all - not a new thing) Biden wasn't a clear winner, was he, but more like an even joust. But you can pretty much shop around on either side and find polls to support your cause.

As for Ryan being against the stimulus (which was a proven waste of time/money) yet asking for funds. Well, let's put it this way: as a politician (a congressman) you might think a policy is plain stupid, but if you don't take advantage of available funds to at least try to stem the flood, you'd be seen as a fool and wouldn't get re-elected. It's like a rich liberal congressman being against tax cuts for the rich, but utilizing said tax cuts because, well there they are. As for the Jack Kennedy comment, you guy need to get over the whole Kennedy thing. Firstly, the democratic party does not hold 'exclusive rights' on ever mentioning JFK. Secondly, despite being practically martyred because of assassination, Camelot wasn't quite as gushingly stellar as liberals love to claim. Remember things like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs fiasco, beginnings of the Vietnam War, spread of communism. Granted, these issues were simmering when he arrived on scene, but the point is that the tragic death of a young President tends to gloss over the rough parts. The fine family man had the other Kennedy curse of not being able to keep it in his trousers. Point being that the old 'your not Jack Kennedy' thing gets old. Frankly I'd be quite glad that I'm not thank you very much.

I'm sorry, is that whining? Or is that truth?

Sorry boys, but I just haven't seen the awesomness of old Joe that seems to be so clear to you. I find him crass and embarrassing.

Well Mad, let's see.....

"Uncle Joe delivers! Paul Ryan owned like a child!"

"Biden did a helluva job. He gave Ryan a pie in the face because Ryan and the GOP deserve it."

"Simply put, Biden delivered the kind of performance that thrilled Democrats like me and enraged the Republicans "

But you've called me on this and I have to own up. I'm reading several different forums right now, and on one the liberals are going wild in saying old Joe won the day. My bad in that I confused that with this one, which isn't surprising since JT usually has a ton of liberals nattering on about blaming bush for everything. Your correct though, the tone here is more as it should be - points to that fact that crazy old Joe is a rude old man. My apologies.

But on that note, partisan politics aside - for those of you that are Dems and will vote for Obama, doesn't the idea of Biden becoming President in some emergency scare the bejeezus out of you? I mean I'm conservative, and back in the day the idea of Dan Quayle becoming Prez had me worried. And the idea of that dope Palin likewise made me shudder. But doesn't the prospect of someone as baffoonish as Joe Biden taking over the most important office (arguably) on the planet put the fear of god in you a bit?

Exactly - to be honest I missed most of it. To read the postings by the drooling libs on here one would think that old smokin joe biden came out with glove raised in a grand style knockout. To read most news stories - and even from some of the liberal press - it was pretty much a dead even tie. ABC says split decision, a CNN poll has it as Ryan - 48% and Biden - 44%, a very shotty sounding NBC poll has Biden winning with undecided voters - but the poll was done early after and polled less than 500 people - how can any poll with that number be considered even minutely accurate.

I think what is happening is that Biden is such a loud-mouthed clown who so often sticks his foot in it, that liberals were so afraid that if he stuck his foot in it this time it could really spell disaster, particularly after the boss man screwed the pooch on his. But old Joe stuck it out and did okay (hey, even my drunken uncle had his days) and the relief of disaster avoided is such that they must claim overwhelming victory.

It's all good, we have a few more to go.

Besides all that, the No 2 man doesn't hold his finger on the button now, does he? I'd rather have my no. 1 man bring his A game then my No 2 man - seen as something of a buffoon anyway, bring his. In fact, I don't think the polls show him as the runaway fave. He did better than his boss (who wouldn't do better than the community organizer without his teleprompter - I did better in my 8th grade English speech) but it wasn't the knock-out some of you liberals seem to be desperately grasping for.

Meh, Biden still very much reminds me of an old drunk Uncle. I don't find rudeness (and odd facial grimaces) to be endearing and a necessary goal to win debate, but that 's me.

Like I said - the differences between each individual instance be it Syria, Libya or Iraq are staggering. That you are unable to understand this does'nt surprise e, it reminds me of the American tourist asking if he can see London from Hawaii.

That makes no sense, and doesn't answer the question. The liberal way - confuse them with what you pretend to know, when you actually know nothing.

Huh?

You:

More rubbish. It is the neighbours supplying the weapons, mostly the Saudi's not the US. Not getting involved in Syria is a very wise move from Obama,

You a few posts up from that:

The screaming from you guys in pathetic attempts at politicizing the attack in Libya is particularly poignant, especially as Obama more or less financed last years revolution from behind the scenes, supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces.

so which is it - are we involved because of the President's 'wise' decisions, or are we not involved? For you it seems to be just a matter of how you wish to spin it for the most favorable light.

The screaming from you guys in pathetic attempts at politicizing the attack in Libya is particularly poignant, especially as Obama more or less financed last years revolution from behind the scenes, supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces.

What about the Israeli/Pal conflict? Which position is the multi-choice Romney using today?

Well, frankly I'm not sure about the President's stance as well. He seems to just refuse to meet and talk to the Israelis at all. Funny way to act towards an ally.

The difference between instigating an invasion and supporting an internal uprising are so staggering that nothing I ever post will get through to your clamshell mind.

Now that's outright funny. For years conservative administrations backed and funded anti-communist uprisings, and for years liberals decried that we were 'supporting, harboring and instigating' war and destruction. So it's only okay if your side does it eh? What are your staggering differences? Arming and supplying a rebel force to do your dirty work (essentially kill them off so we don't have to risk our own) is as old a war itself. Now you're claiming that as the liberal way?? Well I'll be double-dipped in chocolate sh___! I've now heard it all.

The inconceivability of listening to left wingers whine on about the policies of a previous administration that have apparently left their choice incapable of doing anything of much good for the country in four years of effort is maddening.

Notalotofsense - not sure what you're on about. The only ones I called lunatics are the 9/11 conspiracy theorists - who for the most part are the more loony fringe of the liberal world. Where in my narrative did I say anything about water-boarding, bombing or shooting anyone? This story is about Romney's attack on the President's foreign policy. Madverts went with the typical blame Bush liberal parrot, and I called him/her on it. I don't think that referencing the previous administration is good practice in defending the failures of the current administration. That's all. If by that you mean the previous administration's policy of waging war after we were unjustly attacked - well, again then you are doing the same thing. Besides, water-boarding isn't exactly foreign policy but rather a discussion of the rules of military engagement and information gathering.

To that point, again Madverts my point is not to go into great lengths on how I might think Mitt's foreign policy would differ from the previous administrations, but rather a simple disgust at the idea that rather than address Romney's points on how he might handle foreign policy matters under his administration if he were elected, you just start talking about George Bush.

The subject isn't Obama's foreign policy, it is Romney's - which as far as I can see is a mirror image of the sabre rattling lunacy we saw from the Bush years. Describing my post a "rant" without having the decency to address even one sole point is what is telling, TigermothII.

Actually the subject is Romney's assessment of the failure of the Presidents foreign policy (or a better term might be it's ineffectiveness). Now you might consider George Bush's foreign policy to be failure as well - and likely a far more epic failure in the sense that war is never a desirable outcome. Fair enough. But statements like:

Like I said, you'd be better polishing that argument no one believes that you didn't really vote for Bush twice like many others posting on this thread (heh, all but one under new identities), than suggesting today's Republicans have anything other than more lunacy on offer as foreign policy.

just show that rather than take on Romney's foreign policy vision, or rather than address the failure of your candidate to really have an effective foreign policy these past four years, you just starts the old Bush, Bush, BushBushbush.......

Very annoying, and not effective argument. So 'getting Bin Laden' (again, I seem to recall reading this was the result of years of intelligence - your boy just gave the word to go) and supplying the weapons to kill in Syria is the strongest arguments for successful foreign policy? Really? Oh, and since you like to harp on Bush being a 'killer' because of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't give the same label to Obama for - as you say - "supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces" which inadvertently kills civilians as inevitably happens in war in Libya? The liberal cry - hypocrisy and blame George Bush. It isn't working anymore - time for you lot to go.

So in other words, judging by your entire rant, you can't do what was asked and put aside the George Bush thing to give the real merits of the President's foreign policy. I find that very telling, if not somewhat tiring. Folks are starting to wake up to the idea that at this point placing blame on past administrations will not get us to the point we need to be.

And again, you ignore all and give the President full credit for the total of the Bin Laden raid. Naturally there was no effort or planning until he entered office. We could be reminded that Slick Willie Clinton's denuding of our intelligence agencies during his tenure helped to ensure 9/11 planning was something of a surprise (except for the lunatic conspiracy theorists on the left of course) - but rather than lay blame, we move forward. You seem to be hesitant to do this. Curios or telling?

Blame - the standard strategy for losers if you ask me.

Ha - then why do liberal keep blaming Bush? Oh, guess you answered that here.

Oh come on - can we drop the George Bush thing now?? It's for years later, let's just judge the President on the merits of what he has - or has not accomplished, shall we? You speak as if focus shouldn't be on the Middle East - well, I would actually agree, but because they're all a bunch of lunatics, the focus must be on the ME because that's where the greatest threat lies. Ignoring it - much as the President currently does to Israel will not make it magically go away. I like the way it was a 'ballsy night raid' under a liberal administration; if it were done by a Republican president there would be outrage that we went into another country without their real permission, and horror that we killed him without trial. I sort of doubt Obama had very much to do with it, except to say 'go'. If you want to believe the President is unable to do anything because of 'Bush's mess' then why is the converse not true that something as lengthy as tracking down Osama was magically done totally under the current administration?

Why should we be silent about foreign policy since it quite obviously plays such a big part in our world standing, and why shouldn't the President be brought to task for his foreign policy being so lacking? Whether Democrat or Republican, that is an issue and an important piece in having a decent President.

It's sort of funny/pathetic/telling that if you just begin reading through the first postings, folks on here - particularly the liberals - were saying 'pretty even, not so bad' right after the date and then the next day the media and every poll was stating what a complete failure the debate was for Obama. It either shows how little most here understand politics, or how skewed people are to see things how they wish to see them.

The President is no Winston Churchill as far as speaking prowess. As far as experience and policy, he's a disaster. But he clearly lost the debate. A good orator does not need a teleprompter, nor proper 'prepping' from his handlers. I'm not saying Romney is either - but he was certainly able to take the lead on this one.

I wouldn't read too much into it (unfortunately). I seem to recall a debate where Ronald Reagan (a great man) hardly seemed to know where he was, and he still won the election.

I love it. The president get's his arse kicked in a debate, and all the liberals can only fall all over themselves with ridiculously stupid excuses. Yeah, yeah - it was probably the altitude, that's it. Give me a break.

Indeed. I offer George W. in evidence and rest my case ; )

I could counter with Jimmy Carter (even typing the name makes me shudder with horror). But you actually raise a good point in a sense. Pointing out that you think someone/some group are idiots is not really newsworthy - unless you're part of the biased media opposed to that particular person or group. Media bias has been around forever and isn't a new thing.

And no Madverts, it's not just because I don't agree with the fellow, but because I simply don't really give a damn what someone from another country - or even my own - cares about on that level. Criticizing a policy or a viewpoint or something else is at least interesting. What if I were secretary of dirty baby diapers, and said that all Australians were descendents of former criminals - would it be worth anyone really caring? And you're so high and mighty - but as you point out, if they were saying that liberals are a bunch of hypocritical dope smoking hippies you'd be screaming worse than I am.

Maybe because he's a prominent member of a government closely allied to the States?

I'm not saying we should ignore our allies - when they have something worthwhile to say. Insulting a political party is not a worthwhile comment to make. If they were insulting the other side, you'd likely say the same thing.

Besides, the president has no problem ignoring our Israeli allies now does he, and I think they are at least equally as important as Australia. And discussions with Israel aren't about whether or not they like one of our political parties.

And also, just because someone is a prominent member of their political process doesn't mean they aren't a jackass.

Question - why should anyone give a rat's arse what the Australian treasurer says or thinks? Except maybe his wife.

Sailwind - amen brother. Even the headline to this one is rather amusing. Obama's experience included the insular world of Harvard, being a lawyer and then a 'community organizer'/career politician. Yeah, he knows all about the real world. Give me a break.

And perhaps if he would have not 'gotten around' so much during his presidency, not literally campaigned and vacationed through the whole thing, he could have done something to actually help rather than further damage the economy and our foreign policy.

This guy will tell you everything you want to hear. That's how he is and that he has been in his entire life.

This guy is not doing political campaign speeches like he used to do as no Republicans want to be seen with Romney any more.

Yes, but 'this guy' ran a successful business - your guy was a lawyer and 'community organizer'. His lack of experience and fiscal knowledge have become quite apparent these past four years. Perhaps he's telling us what we want to hear because he'll do what we want him to do, as opposed to forcing lame and non-working policy down our collective throats whether we like it nor not.

People seem to be confusing two issues. Is there racial inequality and issues in the the US? Most certainly, but that's not the question. Do most conservatives dislike the President because of color? No, it's because of his policies. The true deep-seated racists will vote one way or the other because of color, but that isn't and shouldn't be construed as the norm for conservatives as a whole. The generalization is made partly out of arrogance, and partly as just a tool to demonize the opposition.

What a load of utter crap, and what a cop-out by liberals to even entertain the suggestion that because the President’s policies are so opposed is because of race. Sure there are a few good old boys who just don’t want to see ‘a [insert any horrible racial slur]’ in the White House, but to say that it is a typical conservative attitude is stupid, arrogant and wrong.

What don’t you get? This country was basically formed as a reaction to what was seen as unfair taxes that disrupted a free market economy; too much of big government (in this case the British Monarchy) in the common man’s business. What is liberal policy, and specifically Obama’s policy? Increase taxes and government role in business and everyday life. Whether you deny it or not it is a marked move towards at least a slight form of socialism that is not what America is about. This administration has been particularly arrogant in forcing through legislation that the American people did not really want or understand (in the case of Obamacare – even the liberal lawmakers hadn’t read the bill or understood most of it, or its implications). Stimulus spending hasn’t done anything except increase national debt, and the economy is still in the crapper (blaming Bush for anything and everything is getting tiresome and very old). I don’t care if the Mr. Obama is green or some shade of indigo. I don’t like his policies and the direction he is taking my country. By his DNC speech he seems to have some vague and idealistic goals for the US, but no substance about how to get to that point. That has absolutely nothing to do with his race.

What might be more telling is the fact that many blacks will vote for Obama simply because he is black. That’s racist, is it not? And if you don’t believe that happens, just look at Marion Barry’s political career as example, plus it’s pretty much admitted fact in the black community.

Your average liberal haughtily claims to be racist-free, but let’s be real here. Look at your average liberal enclave of academia (Berkley comes to mind). How many black people live in that community? Let’s look at your average liberal yuppie community where everyone claims to be socially active and drives around in those ridiculous smart cars and claims to be ‘living green’. How many folks of color in that neighborhood? And if some ‘gangsta’ moved in, how many whispers behind drawn curtain and looks of fear would be thrown by the enlightened, non-racist liberal elite? Your liberal pals in Hollywood; that town is known to be racist in the black community - how many black mega-stars are there as opposed to the average white-bread type? Do Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon have black neighbors?

This whole idea that conservatives are a bunch of knuckle dragging klan members is stupid rubbish made up by hypocrite liberals simply because they can’t stand that everyone doesn’t think their man is brilliant. Dissent is not allowed, or you are nothing but an extremist, racist monster. What happened to the idea that liberals are supposed to be so open-minded? Oh, I get it – they’re only open-mined if you agree with them. I see.