So you post links to crackpot blogs and claim that they are spokespeople for the left yet a few pages back you wanted to pretend that Sarah Palin isn't a recognized voice for the right in spite of the fact that she's constantly on Fox News, speaks at Republican events and shills book after book. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

I never said that Sarah Palin isn't a recognized voice on the right; I have just stated that she is no longer part of mainstream GOP thought. She still clearly has a huge megaphone among the Tea Party wing, but that wing (1) has been losing favor among Republicans at large and (2) has failed miserably when trying to get one of their own as the GOP nominee. Also, there are extremists in the Democratic party (e.g. Al Sharpton) who are recognized voices for large Democratic constituencies (and sell plenty of books), so no one party has a monopoly on hate.

Even more importantly, Palin and her ilk are far from the only fear mongers in American politics today. While I don't recall a top Democrat saying something as extreme as "Republicans hate gays," the fact of the matter is that people at the highest levels of the Democratic party have employed similarly extreme scare tactics ("War on Women," "back in chains") that are solely intended to keep women and African-Americans from even considering voting GOP. I don't pretend that the GOP doesn't use scare tactics, but I wish there would be some liberal that could acknowledge that the Democrats are also very effective at using them.

Your post after post ignoring the actual topic (the law in AZ) to instead pretend the topic is liberal persecution of republicans on this issue is one of your weakest arguments to date on this site.

Far from ignoring the AZ law, I have condemned it. And if you recall, my initial point was never liberal persecution of certain Republicans, but rather the mass hysteria and fear that was leveled at McCain and Romney, who are in the moderate wing of the party. And currently the mass hysteria is directed at a very-weakened Chris Christie, another moderate Republican who was actually one of only two governors who singed into law a bill that banned gay-conversion therapy. (But, never mind that! He is opposed to gay marriage, so he hates gays, even though that was the Democratic position two years ago!)

By the way, I'm not trying to gloss over the Bridgegate accusations, which are very serious. But we have a network--MSNBC--that obsessively covers this matter, despite the fact that liberals called FNC a tool of the GOP for doing the same thing regarding Benghazi. And it is not the scandal itself that is causing the most fear among Democrats (because if GOP scandal itself was all they cared about, then there would also be non-stop coverage of Bob McDonnell, who--unlike Christie--actually has been indicted). What they really fear is a moderate Republican like Christie could still be elected president, hence necessitating non-stop coverage of Bridgegate and employing other scare tactics as well (like making fun of his weight and even his Italian ethnicity, which is what occurred when The New Republic printed a picture that seemed to equate Christie with Tony Soprano).

It is the same exact place where a couple of years back there was another republican push to legalize discrimination based on skin color. So when you see people want to make every person with brown skin show papers like refugees from Europe circa 1940 and then you want to make it legal for gay people to role play 1950s Alabama, you rightfully earn the title of bigot and hate monger.

Your entitled to object to that law, but don't get the facts so blatantly wrong. It didn't require all Latinos to carry papers, but only required aliens to do so. I know that liberals perceive that provision--and the part of the law that empowered state police to determine if somebody was an illegal immigrant (if there was reasonable suspicion)--as "hate," but it's totally outrageous to suggest that a law designed to lessen illegal immigration is in the same league as a law that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gays (who are in this country legally).

I don't know how much clearer it can get. To be a republican is to choose to be a member of a party that exists to expand hate and prejudice. If it isn't the brown skin people it is the gays, and if it isnt the gays it is those welfare queens and the 47% who want handouts. And if it isnt them it is the "elites" who live in NY and want your guns and hate Jesus. That's the republican motif--to show how different everyone is from we true American republicans and resent them.

I could also make a list of a vile, hateful stereotypes promoted by "tolerant progressives," like these:

*Those who live in the rural areas "cling to their guns and religion"

*The South is backwoods country, filled with trailer-park trash

*Mormons are members of a racist cult who wear magic underwear

*The rich are greedy, and that's why they are opposed to higher taxes

*Opposition to Obama is because people can't stand having a black man as president

*The GOP is the party of "boring white men"

*The Republicans are engaging in a War on Women (already mentioned earlier)

*The GOP wants to put blacks back in chains (also mentioned previously)

Thus, the GOP is far from the only party of hate, though--time and again--you have been unwilling to acknowledge this fact. Even more hypocritical is that you let your idols, the Clintons, off the hook for making comments (e.g., Hillary claiming that she was the candidate of hard working, white people, and Bill stating that Obama would have been serving him coffee a few years prior to 2008) that you would have been fuming over had they been made by a Republican.

Edited February 28, 201411 yr by Max

Is anybody ready to predict the outcome of the Alex Sink-David Jolly special election House race (that has gotten so much oversized attention from the media)? I am guessing that Jolly will squeak out a win, but I will wait before making my final prediction. The one thing that I know with certainty is that the winning side will obnoxiously gloat about their victory, and try to suggest that the outcome based on this one election will correctly predict the outcome nationally in November.

Yes, if the GOP had the chance black Americans would be in chains. Religious freedom laws? So someone who can't keep their nose in their own business can pick two people of the same sex and refuse service to those two based on IF they seem gay or not. Not one Democrat has created legislation like that, Republicans do. How many Democrats have created legislation that would intrude on a woman's body? And what gender are these Republicans?

Not every conservative is a Republican of course. Many conservatives vote for Democratic candidates. I think that gets lost on a few in this thread because they want to pus the "all Democrats are liberals" mess. How many Republican controlled WHs and Congresses have actually balanced a but? How many have brought down the national debt? We had a Republican-led WH & Congress from 2000-2006 and not one spending bill was vetoed. We're still paying down what the Bush admin. and that Congress left us with. So let's remember some of these things when we talk about these things.

Typical pseudo-liberal New Republic, and typical of the "liberals" who often throw gays under the bus and emphasizes that gay rights just aren't a big deal (these are the types of people who wrote articles after the 2004 elections saying that Democrats should support anti-gay legislation - this is why I do not like to define myself by any party). Basically, Arizona was an "easy" win and liberals are distracted by "bright shiny objects." Because of course, a law that would allow wide swathes of the public to be discriminated against and is being fought in many states is no biggie.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116789/liberalism-arizona-gay-rights-and-arkansas-medicaid-expansion

Typical pseudo-liberal New Republic, and typical of the "liberals" who often throw gays under the bus and emphasizes that gay rights just aren't a big deal (these are the types of people who wrote articles after the 2004 elections saying that Democrats should support anti-gay legislation - this is why I do not like to define myself by any party). Basically, Arizona was an "easy" win and liberals are distracted by "bright shiny objects." Because of course, a law that would allow wide swathes of the public to be discriminated against and is being fought in many states is no biggie.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116789/liberalism-arizona-gay-rights-and-arkansas-medicaid-expansion

Interesting. I agree a little about liberals and bright shiny objects.

Things are heating up here in Ohio on marriage equality because there's some serious division in strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/ohio-gay-marriage-push-divides-some-advocates.html

I was talking to a friend about it last night. He's on the board of the local LGBT center. It was tough for me to look at him and say that I don't think a ballot initiative is a good idea because I've been planning his and his partner's wedding for ten years but there's just not the war chest for the type of fight we would have here and support is only at 50 percent.

Ballot fights are always a bad idea.

To answer Max's question - I think Jolly will win. Given Sink's vulnerabilities, I never thought she would win, and I assume that the Democrats had no one else credible near that district.

This scares the crap out of me:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ukraine-calls-russian-troops-invasion/2014/02/28/e066bfc8-a0be-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html

Yes, if the GOP had the chance black Americans would be in chains.

Roman, deep down you know that this is just a reprehensible scare tactic. If the GOP wanted to do this, then why didn't it happen when Bush (whom many Democrats still believe organized a racist scheme to suppress the black vote in FL) and the GOP Congress had control of the federal government? Even the most serious, substantive objections that African-Americans currently have with the GOP are in regards to conservatives pushing for voter ID laws and the elimination of affirmative action. But in the very worst scenario, blacks fear that such parts of the GOP agenda will make it tougher for them to vote and get into college (or get a job). There never has been one credible claim/explanation in regards to how these most "racist" parts of the GOP agenda (voter ID laws and elimination of affirmative action) could possibly result in African-Americans being put back in chains.

How many Democrats have created legislation that would intrude on a woman's body? And what gender are these Republicans?

I cannot speak for you specifically, but some in the pro-choice movement believe any legislation that places restrictions on abortion is intrusive on female bodies and represents a "War on Women." As with the "GOP is homophopic" mantra, my biggest problem with the "War on Women" scare slogan is the double-standard employed by Democrats: pro-life Republicans receive all the venom (for engaging in a War on Women and violating their reproductive rights), while pro-life Democrats aren't subjected to these types of attacks. If liberals truly want to walk the walk on this issue, then they need to purge all the pro-life Democrats from the party (by calling them sexist, challenging them in primaries, running third-party candidates against pro-life Democrats that survive such primaries, etc.).

And men aren't the only pro-life Republicans who support legislation placing restrictions on abortion. Plenty of pro-life GOP women support these measures as well.

Edited March 1, 201411 yr by Max

If liberals truly want to walk the walk on this issue, then they need to purge all the pro-life Democrats from the party (by calling them sexist, challenging them in primaries, running third-party candidates against pro-life Democrats that survive such primaries, etc.).

Because that kind of behavior has been so healthy and productive for the Republicans? Purging people from the party because of lack of ideological purity is a right wing tactic. Sane people understand that a party can't function that way. What you call a "double standard" is really just the Democrats being more tolerant of diversity of thought. The fact that you see that as something to be criticized and purged speaks volumes.

Because that kind of behavior has been so healthy and productive for the Republicans? Purging people from the party because of lack of ideological purity is a right wing tactic. Sane people understand that a party can't function that way. What you call a "double standard" is really just the Democrats being more tolerant of diversity of thought. The fact that you see that as something to be criticized and purged speaks volumes.

There's plenty of room for diversity in each party, but certain things should be core tenants of both parties, especially if the other party is vilified for holding opposing views. Given the venom with which the GOP goes after ObamaCare, those who support it don't belong in the party. And given the recent venom that Democrats have shown towards Republicans who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage, any Democrats who share those views no longer belong in that party. And even the Tea Party, whom I oppose and whose willingness to purge any non-extreme Republican has been very hurtful to the party, at least deserves credit for their ideological consistency and willingness to take on the GOP establishment (which, as I alluded to earlier, stands in contrast to MSNBC progressives, who generally seem to give unconditional support to the Democratic establishment).

Edited March 2, 201411 yr by Max

Roman, deep down you know that this is just a reprehensible scare tactic. If the GOP wanted to do this, then why didn't it happen when Bush (whom many Democrats still believe organized a racist scheme to suppress the black vote in FL) and the GOP Congress had control of the federal government? Even the most serious, substantive objections that African-Americans currently have with the GOP are in regards to conservatives pushing for voter ID laws and the elimination of affirmative action. But in the very worst scenario, blacks fear that such parts of the GOP agenda will make it tougher for them to vote and get into college (or get a job). There never has been one credible claim/explanation in regards to how these most "racist" parts of the GOP agenda (voter ID laws and elimination of affirmative action) could possibly result in African-Americans being put back in chains.

I cannot speak for you specifically, but some in the pro-choice movement believe any legislation that places restrictions on abortion is intrusive on female bodies and represents a "War on Women." As with the "GOP is homophopic" mantra, my biggest problem with the "War on Women" scare slogan is the double-standard employed by Democrats: pro-life Republicans receive all the venom (for engaging in a War on Women and violating their reproductive rights), while pro-life Democrats aren't subjected to these types of attacks. If liberals truly want to walk the walk on this issue, then they need to purge all the pro-life Democrats from the party (by calling them sexist, challenging them in primaries, running third-party candidates against pro-life Democrats that survive such primaries, etc.).

And men aren't the only pro-life Republicans who support legislation placing restrictions on abortion. Plenty of pro-life GOP women support these measures as well.

Max, don't ever in you life tell me what i think, OK? I'm only going to say this ONE.DAMN.TIME.

There's plenty of room for diversity in each party, but certain things should be core tenants of both parties, especially if the other party is vilified for holding opposing views. Given the venom with which the GOP goes after ObamaCare, those who support it don't belong in the party. And given the recent venom that Democrats have shown towards Republicans who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage, any Democrats who share those views no longer belong in that party. And even the Tea Party, whom I oppose and whose willingness to purge any non-extreme Republican has been very hurtful to the party, at least deserves credit for their ideological consistency and willingness to take on the GOP establishment (which, as I alluded to earlier, stands in contrast to MSNBC progressives, who generally seem to give unconditional support to the Democratic establishment).

There is no room in that party for anyone who isn't white and financially well off. Period. They haven't been that inclusive in 60 years, so anyone who thinks this is, IMO, off their rocker.

Because that kind of behavior has been so healthy and productive for the Republicans? Purging people from the party because of lack of ideological purity is a right wing tactic. Sane people understand that a party can't function that way. What you call a "double standard" is really just the Democrats being more tolerant of diversity of thought. The fact that you see that as something to be criticized and purged speaks volumes.

Thank you so much for this post.

You can't speak for me Max but then you start your post speaking for me. Pick one or the other. This having it both ways things is just counterproductive.

Edited March 2, 201411 yr by Roman

Max, don't ever in you life tell me what i think, OK? I'm only going to say this ONE.DAMN.TIME.

You can't speak for me Max but then you start your post speaking for me.

In that particular statement I wasn't speaking for you, as evidenced by the fact that I stated that "I cannot speak for you specifically." See below:

I cannot speak for you specifically, but some in the pro-choice movement believe any legislation that places restrictions on abortion is intrusive on female bodies and represents a "War on Women."

I was, however, making a generalization about what some some of the far-left feminists seem to believe. If this upsets you so much, then you need to look in the mirror before you make such generalizations as this:

There is no room in that party for anyone who isn't white and financially well off. Period. They haven't been that inclusive in 60 years, so anyone who thinks this is, IMO, off their rocker.

This comment from January is some more evidence of your continued hypocrisy:

What really chaps my azz is this "Well you all never call out Democrats" crap that still seems to be the consistent theme by some in this thread. MHP actually said how sorry she was at something that was taken in a negative light. When was the last time ANY far right wing celeb apologize for the truly evil and hateful things they have said...and continue to say...about any progressive? I also continue to see the racial hatred of our current POTUS. All I've ever asked is that he be judged fairly (there is plenty factual material that he can be blasted on) but all i still seem to read in this thread is THE most hateful things about the man without one shred of proof. Then if he isn't gone after, well then let's attack his family, because "well no one said anything about the far left when they attacked Bush's family" which by that disgusting reasoning makes it ok.

Those persons in this thread feel not only do they speak for an entire segment of our society, they don't want to even consider what someone with a differing opinion might be saying. They just come in, make really silly comments based on lies and their own personal hatred, and then want to call out anyone who won't agree with them.

Most hypocritical--and most hurtful--is that you immediately claim that my opposition to the president is racially motivated. Well, it's true that you didn't refer to me by name, but instead you decided to be "cute" and suggest that some in this thread dislike Obama for this reason. BUT WHAT OTHER ANTI-OBAMA VOICE BESIDE MYSELF STILL REMAINS IN THIS THREAD? All the other token conservatives have left this thread long ago, so we all know damn well who you are referring to when you make these disgusting racism accusations. (And when exactly did I say anything even remotely critical about Obama's wife and daughters?)

You are the last person to be lecturing me about making generalizations, when you leap to the most disgusting ones regarding me. I have no idea how you can even live with yourself.

Edited March 2, 201411 yr by Max

Max is right, he is the only conservative in this thread so if a person does post something "some in this thread are..." you pretty much have to be talking about him. That not nice.

Max is right, he is the only conservative in this thread so if a person does post something "some in this thread are..." you pretty much have to be talking about him. That not nice.

Qfan, this took a lot of courage for you to say, and I am so very grateful to you for doing so.

I know that our last disagreement got really intense, but I never intended it to come across as personal (and am so sorry if that is how it appeared). You are such a treasure because you always add such insightful comments to the board, even though our political views couldn't be more different.

Despite the fact that I am so vastly outnumbered ideologically, I still enjoy coming to this thread because there are so many people--Qfan, DRW, Prince, Juppiter, Jane, Wales, Marceline, Alphanguy, and others--who add a lot of valuable content to this thread.

Edited March 2, 201411 yr by Max

In that particular statement I wasn't speaking for you, as evidenced by the fact that I stated that "I cannot speak for you specifically." See below:

I was, however, making a generalization about what some some of the far-left feminists seem to believe. If this upsets you so much, then you need to look in the mirror before you make such generalizations as this:

This comment from January is some more evidence of your continued hypocrisy:

Most hypocritical--and most hurtful--is that you immediately claim that my opposition to the president is racially motivated. Well, it's true that you didn't refer to me by name, but instead you decided to be "cute" and suggest that some in this thread dislike Obama for this reason. BUT WHAT OTHER ANTI-OBAMA VOICE BESIDE MYSELF STILL REMAINS IN THIS THREAD? All the other token conservatives have left this thread long ago, so we all know damn well who you are referring to when you make these disgusting racism accusations. (And when exactly did I say anything even remotely critical about Obama's wife and daughters?)

You are the last person to be lecturing me about making generalizations, when you leap to the most disgusting ones regarding me. I have no idea how you can even live with yourself.

I don't give a crap what you say. You are comical to me. I just told you how I felt anyone doesn't like oh well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/lawrence-lockman-rape-_n_4874586.html

A Republican who really is reaching out.

Max is right, he is the only conservative in this thread so if a person does post something "some in this thread are..." you pretty much have to be talking about him. That not nice.

I really don't care about whose a conservative or not. If you want to trip off that fine. And i do think Max's attitude towards the POTUS is racially motivated, and I've never said different. That's my opinion. K?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/obama-allies-ukraine_n_4885962.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

This is sticky business.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/mike-rogers-russia_n_4884922.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Comments like this make it almost impossible for me to vote Republican. Aren't these the same people who found it almost criminal for anyone to say a bad word about W.?