Most Viewers Loved Obama's State of the Union

greymouser wrote:

<quoted text>
He likes to use the Southern Democrats from the Civil War timeframe on because there's Democrat in the name. Strange how they all turned Republican after Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act.
But for some people, labels are the important thing.
Democratic is better than Communist.
Republic is better than a Monarchy.
Toss in People are more important than the Nobility.
So the Democratic People's Republic should be awesome, right?
http://www.korea-dpr.com/

Again you make no sense. Who did you copy from this time?

greymouser wrote:

<quoted text>
He likes to use the Southern Democrats from the Civil War timeframe on because there's Democrat in the name. Strange how they all turned Republican after Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act....

Civil War Timeframe?

I said for a CENTURY AFTER the Civil War and it was not just the southern democrats. Northern Democrats were happy to have the power provided by their unholy alliance with their fellow power seekers.

It was not Johnson's Civil Rights Act, he just took credit for it. Remember he said, "When I sign this we will own the N word vote for 100 years"

It was the Republicans that pushed it through. The credit really belongs to the Civil Rights Movement itself though who led while the politicians followed.

greymouser wrote:

<quoted text>
That's pretty much what I'd expect the assistant in Room 101 to say.
If I had to guess, I'd say that "fair and equal treatment under the law" would be a threat to you. You'd have to compete on the merits of your abilities without the privileges granted on the circumstance of your birth.

Where do you make up all this stuff?

Besides my birthright as an American (and yes my ancestors DID HELP CREATE this country) and a truly assimilated one at that, what special privileges were given to me?

Where have I denied someone their proper treatment under the law?

Fair and equal treatment under the law has NOTHING in Common with you!

For you, equality is an excuse for totalitarianism!

You desire the equality of the FRENCH Revolution!

greymouser wrote:

<quoted text>
I noticed you neglected to include an adjective with your "Democrats" pejorative there. It would be more accurate to say Southern Democrats.
Lincoln may have been in the Republican Party, that just means he was, to put it in your grammatical syntax, a LIBTARD!!!
But I'll play a bit. Here's the results of the 1860 election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pr...
And 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pr...
Lookie how all the Southern Democrats are now Communist Red...

No, ALL DEMOCRATS happily benefitted from the power of their combined numbers for a CENTURY. There is NO EXCUSE for any of them! In 1958 JF Kennedy stated in an article in LIFE magazine that the Democrats were the right party for both blacks and southern whites.

Lincoln was not a LIBTARD like you. He understood what America was and could discuss it. Unlike LIBTARDS he could identify and state his assumptions (instead of hiding them out of fear or shame), presented facts (not lies), and used logic (not twisted like yours) to tie them together to a reasonable conclusion (nothing like your perverted ends).

You are hung up on the race problems your PARTY created to gain power for itself. Like you they create problems so they can seize power and force solutions on others.

You and your party HATE that America is for, of, and by free men.

buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
No, ALL DEMOCRATS happily benefitted from the power of their combined numbers for a CENTURY. There is NO EXCUSE for any of them! In 1958 JF Kennedy stated in an article in LIFE magazine that the Democrats were the right party for both blacks and southern whites.
Lincoln was not a LIBTARD like you. He understood what America was and could discuss it. Unlike LIBTARDS he could identify and state his assumptions (instead of hiding them out of fear or shame), presented facts (not lies), and used logic (not twisted like yours) to tie them together to a reasonable conclusion (nothing like your perverted ends).
You are hung up on the race problems your PARTY created to gain power for itself. Like you they create problems so they can seize power and force solutions on others.
You and your party HATE that America is for, of, and by free men.

Not only would Lincoln have been considered a Liberal; so would Jesus. You folks are the fabled money changers outside the temple.

Barbara wrote:

<quoted text>Not only would Lincoln have been considered a Liberal; so would Jesus. You folks are the fabled money changers outside the temple.

At least you were able to speak in a full two sentences this time.
I do congratulate you on that!

Not only that but you used civic and religious references. That too is a step up for you! Congratulations!

However your understanding of both LIncoln and Jesus is simply sloppy and ill considered.

They were both men of righteousness and conviction and FIRM beliefs grounded in TRUTH. They could explain their underlying assumptions, and use both facts and logic to bring men to agree with them.

The money changers were despised but it was the priests who let them in to the Temple. Without the help of the so called leaders (government or those in charge), the travesty could not have happened. Jesus acted like a free man Tea Party Patriot when he chased out the money changers! He certainly did not act like an Obama czar or Bush bureaucrat.

Barbara wrote:

<quoted text>Not only would Lincoln have been considered a Liberal; so would Jesus. You folks are the fabled money changers outside the temple.

Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was for gays?

Buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
At least you were able to speak in a full two sentences this time.
I do congratulate you on that!
Not only that but you used civic and religious references. That too is a step up for you! Congratulations!
However your understanding of both LIncoln and Jesus is simply sloppy and ill considered.
They were both men of righteousness and conviction and FIRM beliefs grounded in TRUTH. They could explain their underlying assumptions, and use both facts and logic to bring men to agree with them.
The money changers were despised but it was the priests who let them in to the Temple. Without the help of the so called leaders (government or those in charge), the travesty could not have happened. Jesus acted like a free man Tea Party Patriot when he chased out the money changers! He certainly did not act like an Obama czar or Bush bureaucrat.

Sorry ... Jesus would not have been a Tea Party member. All you folks care about is money. I don't believe that there is a charitable bone among you. That neither defines Jesus nor does it define Lincoln.

See the Light wrote:

<quoted text>Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was for gays?

The Catholic Church married Gays for 3 centuries. Look it up.

buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you make no sense. Who did you copy from this time?

You are the one that is quite fond of labels. Anything you disagree with becomes "liberal" (or LIBTARD!!!!! to use your style).

My post where you get confused shows how labels are used to mislead.

But then, I'm giving you a benefit of the doubt and assume that you can look beyond what someone has told you to believe.

Apparently, I've made a mistake in gauging your abilities.

buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
Civil War Timeframe?
I said for a CENTURY AFTER the Civil War and it was not just the southern democrats. Northern Democrats were happy to have the power provided by their unholy alliance with their fellow power seekers.
It was not Johnson's Civil Rights Act, he just took credit for it. Remember he said, "When I sign this we will own the N word vote for 100 years"
It was the Republicans that pushed it through. The credit really belongs to the Civil Rights Movement itself though who led while the politicians followed.

Um, wow. Just wow.

You really are Parsons from 1984. How sad.

Barbara wrote:

<quoted text>The Catholic Church married Gays for 3 centuries. Look it up.

Jesus was a Jew, not catholic. Look it up.

buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
Where do you make up all this stuff?
Besides my birthright as an American (and yes my ancestors DID HELP CREATE this country) and a truly assimilated one at that, what special privileges were given to me?
Where have I denied someone their proper treatment under the law?
Fair and equal treatment under the law has NOTHING in Common with you!
For you, equality is an excuse for totalitarianism!
You desire the equality of the FRENCH Revolution!

"Besides my birthright as an American (and yes my ancestors DID HELP CREATE this country)..."

Are you suggesting that your ancestors who HELP[ed] CREATE this country endowed you with special privileges by your "birthright"?

The equality of the FRENCH revolution was to destroy the birthright privileges of nobility.

But go on... tell me more about your ancestors that should provide inheritable privileges for you. Perhaps we could declare you a Baron of some minor county of Massachusetts if you are 3rd or 4th generation American.

It's your birthright, right? You got to choose the manner of your birth so you should be held in higher respect by those lesser to you.

buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
No, ALL DEMOCRATS happily benefitted from the power of their combined numbers for a CENTURY. There is NO EXCUSE for any of them! In 1958 JF Kennedy stated in an article in LIFE magazine that the Democrats were the right party for both blacks and southern whites.
Lincoln was not a LIBTARD like you. He understood what America was and could discuss it. Unlike LIBTARDS he could identify and state his assumptions (instead of hiding them out of fear or shame), presented facts (not lies), and used logic (not twisted like yours) to tie them together to a reasonable conclusion (nothing like your perverted ends).
You are hung up on the race problems your PARTY created to gain power for itself. Like you they create problems so they can seize power and force solutions on others.
You and your party HATE that America is for, of, and by free men.

Oh, utter BS.

The South of the Civil War era were conservatives of the day. The institution of slavery was a time honored tradition of the ages and should not be changed.

Lincoln may be considered conservative because his primary focus was to preserve the union but his Emancipation Proclamation sealed him as a LIBTARD! such that black people also had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and recognized that they were -people-. Lincoln still thought that the blacks were inferior to whites, but he was progressive in just recognizing they were people and not work animals to be bought and sold.)

You think the Republicans today are equivalent to the Republicans of Lincoln's time. It would not surprise me to hear you claim that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.

Twist and Shout all you want. I've already seen that you would be a Henry Ford or Charles Lindbergh in regards to your politics.

See the Light wrote:

<quoted text>Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was for gays?

Jesus did not believe in abortion. You guys are all non-believer's, so why do you even care?

Barbara wrote:

<quoted text>Not only would Lincoln have been considered a Liberal; so would Jesus. You folks are the fabled money changers outside the temple.

Maybe. Then Saul who became Paul took over the church in a few short years and wanted Theocratic Communism. Acts, Chapter 5 - Ananias and Sapphira. Include Acts 4 from 32 on (Life in the Christian Community) to put in in perspective.

Look it up...

Buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
At least you were able to speak in a full two sentences this time.
I do congratulate you on that!
Not only that but you used civic and religious references. That too is a step up for you! Congratulations!
However your understanding of both LIncoln and Jesus is simply sloppy and ill considered.
They were both men of righteousness and conviction and FIRM beliefs grounded in TRUTH. They could explain their underlying assumptions, and use both facts and logic to bring men to agree with them.
The money changers were despised but it was the priests who let them in to the Temple. Without the help of the so called leaders (government or those in charge), the travesty could not have happened. Jesus acted like a free man Tea Party Patriot when he chased out the money changers! He certainly did not act like an Obama czar or Bush bureaucrat.

Help us, Ron Paul! You're our only hope!

You are an adult, right? So why do your arguments and understanding of anything sound more like a 5 year old?

But once again, I give you the benefit of the doubt. Even a 5 year old child asks a question that challenges my understanding.

All you do is present arguments that you've been told to squawk. Like a parrot.

See the Light wrote:

<quoted text>Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was for gays?

How about something from -Jesus- that condemns gays?

See the Light wrote:

<quoted text>Jesus was a Jew, not catholic. Look it up.

Well, gee. that explains everything up until around 30 CE. Care to enlighten us for the next 2000 years?

greymouser wrote:

<quoted text>
"Besides my birthright as an American (and yes my ancestors DID HELP CREATE this country)..."
Are you suggesting that your ancestors who HELP[ed] CREATE this country endowed you with special privileges by your "birthright"?...

The people who actually created this country did so for liberty for themselves and their posterity. That is the reason they were willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. They did NOT do it for frivolous reasons and they did not do it for the sake of immigration and they did not do it as a free lunch for the world to consume.

Thus they DID do it for me since I am their progeny. When this country becomes a bad place for the descendants of those who created it, then it has lost its original purpose and reason for being.

You are one of those whose ancestors must have been for King George III and got dragged along into this new country. Now 200 years later you have come out of the shadows to put those who love power rather than liberty back in charge.

Again like before the Tea Party folks will stop you!