View Full Version : "Healthcare isn't the only thing that's Communism"
Ganymede
09-08-09, 06:22 AM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
This is the same constituency that's showing up to town halls today. Preaching the same fire and brimstone sermon about how America is turning into Communism.
Perhaps they are under they impression that the word 'communism' means 'not what I want'.
This is the same constituency that's showing up to town halls today. Preaching the same fire and brimstone sermon about how America is turning into Communism.
You sure about that? The segregationists were a bunch of Democrats.
Nice attempt at playing the race-card, though.
You sure about that? The segregationists were a bunch of Democrats.
And your point being?
And your point being?
I thought that was pretty obvious, Tiassa. The people showing up at town hall meetings and making a scene typically aren't Democrats.
Ganymede
09-08-09, 07:17 AM
Perhaps they are under they impression that the word 'communism' means 'not what I want'.
Exactly, whatever they don't want is labeled Communist. The Conservatives never fail to play the Communist card when their politicians aren't in power.
Exactly, whatever they don't want is labeled Communist. The Conservatives never fail to play the Communist card when their politicians aren't in power.
And many liberals play the "Fascist Card" when they aren't in power. Both sides do it, so what's your point?
iceaura
09-08-09, 07:40 AM
I thought that was pretty obvious, Tiassa. The people showing up at town hall meetings and making a scene typically aren't Democrats. Their parents were - they switched to Republican after Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned the Democratic Party communist, with race-mixing and government telling everyone who they had to hire and go to school with and so forth.
Nixon's "southern strategy" for Republicans winning elections was to bring in those folks - it worked. And it brought us the Reagan Era, which just crashed the country - maybe we can pick up the pieces, eh?
Their parents were - they switched to Republican after Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned the Democratic Party communist, with race-mixing and government telling everyone who they had to hire and go to school with and so forth.
Nixon's "southern strategy" for Republicans winning elections was to bring in those folks - it worked. And it brought us the Reagan Era, which just crashed the country - maybe we can pick up the pieces, eh?
The name of that image file is "Little_Rock_integration_protest". The schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, were integrated before Kennedy and Johnson were in the Oval Office. I have no idea what political party these peoples' parents belonged to, but supporting segregation in the 1950s was generally a platform of the Democrats.
iceaura
09-08-09, 08:09 AM
I have no idea what political party these peoples' parents belonged to, but supporting segregation in the 1950s was generally a platform of the Democrats. Your point?
The KKK crowd in general were Democrats then, Republicans now. It's the same people - they just switched parties after Johnson betrayed them. They voted for W in 2000 and 2004.
EntropyAlwaysWins
09-08-09, 08:32 AM
Your point?
The KKK crowd in general were Democrats then, Republicans now. It's the same people - they just switched parties after Johnson betrayed them. They voted for W in 2000 and 2004.
"No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other."
-Jascha Heifetz
Buffalo Roam
09-08-09, 09:15 AM
Their parents were - they switched to Republican after Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned the Democratic Party communist, with race-mixing and government telling everyone who they had to hire and go to school with and so forth.
Nixon's "southern strategy" for Republicans winning elections was to bring in those folks - it worked. And it brought us the Reagan Era, which just crashed the country - maybe we can pick up the pieces, eh?
Sorry, ice you have to prove that, this statement is nothing but partisan hyperbole, and slander.
This picture is long before Nixon ever took office, 1957 in fact, it is from the Little Rock protest, and even I am cognoscente of the fact that Nixon wasn't President until 1969 over a decade later.
It was, Govenor Orval Eugene Faubus, a Democrat who ordered the Arkansas National Guard, to to stop African American students from attending Little Rock Central High School.
It was a Republican President who stood up to the Democrats for desegregation at Little Rock, President President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
A Republican Freed the Slaves and a Republican gave them the Right to attend any school, an it was the Democrats who stood in the way, it was the Democrats who filled the Ranks of the KKK, and they are still Democrats.
History is that it was the Democrats who supported slavery, and the Republican were anti slavery, it is Republican who are for the right to attend school regardless of color, and the Democrats who are anti choice,
It was the Republicans who delivered Civil Rights in 1964 when President Johnson couldn't get enough vote in a Democrat Controlled Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Yes ice, real history, real facts, not partisan hyperbole.
Buffalo Roam
09-08-09, 09:19 AM
Your point?
The KKK crowd in general were Democrats then, Republicans now. It's the same people - they just switched parties after Johnson betrayed them. They voted for W in 2000 and 2004.
Prove it my friend, the KKK is still a Democrat filled organization, it roots are Democrat from the South, and it is still that same ideology that permeates it's ranks today, a ideology that is the Antithesis of Conservatism, and the factual history of the Republican Party.
Your point?
The KKK crowd in general were Democrats then, Republicans now. It's the same people - they just switched parties after Johnson betrayed them. They voted for W in 2000 and 2004.
Go to a white supremacist forum and ask the members what they think of George W. Bush. ;)
Prove it my friend, the KKK is still a Democrat filled organization, it roots are Democrat from the South, and it is still that same ideology that permeates it's ranks today, a ideology that is the Antithesis of Conservatism, and the factual history of the Republican Party.
To be fair, I've browsed some white supremacist and KKK web sites over the years for curiosity's sake and, while I have no idea what political parties what these people actually belong to, they don't seem to be fans of the agendas of either the Republican or Democrat parties.
The KKK was originally a Democrat-filled organization, but they probably aren't now. After all, the Klan advocates discrimination against minorities and Democrats are more likely to support discrimination against white males.
nirakar
09-08-09, 11:14 AM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
This is the same constituency that's showing up to town halls today. Preaching the same fire and brimstone sermon about how America is turning into Communism.
You got it. It is not about communism or fascism or race or Democrats or Republicans or religion or ideology.
It is about mentality. Black and white thinking, anti-complexity/pro traditions people who passionately feel the urge towards "us versus them" hostile thinking make a handy angry mob that politicians or corporations can easily set against anybody who threatens their interests.
Black and white thinking, anti-complexity/pro traditions people who passionately feel the urge towards "us versus them" hostile thinking are the Limbaugh/Fox audience and were the anti-integration mob. Racism was a symptom of this mentality not these cause of this mentality. All over the world caveman culture has it's political parties and religious extremists sects that promote "us versus them" and oppose the imposition upon them of complex thinking, and facts and the inclusion of minorities and tolerance, and enforced kindness and justice "for them" and unclear gender roles and deviance from tradition.
I wish the cavemen could just figure out that they are not qualified to participate in politics and step aside and let the proponents of kindness and justice compete intellectually with the proponents of efficiency unrestrained competition and trickle down. Unfortunately the caveman keep being brought into the debate by forces that try to use or brought into the debate by their general opposition to change or towards or brought into the debate by their hostility towards the kind of people who would take their freedom by insisting that they must be kind. Cavemen don't like being told share their toys or being told not to hit.
Once the cavemen are in the debate the debate ceases to be intellectual and becomes a strictly emotional debate.
How many competing House resolutions on health care "reform" are there? Which resolutions should be studied and which should be ignored. I hate conference committees. Conference committees always seem to merge the worst part of Senate and House bills and drop out the better parts of Senate and House bills.
I hate the Massachusetts plan which was just a gift to the insurance industry, and a small segment of the working poor and maybe a slight gift to the previously insured at the expense of tax payers and the healthy young middle class to lower middle class uninsured who were forced to buy insurance that they did not want to buy and which may not cover them if they actually get sick.
My political instincts say that there will not be any significant changes to health care coming out of these bills. The Insurance/medical industry will probably squeeze a few gifts for themselves out of this mess but that is all that will happen. I think there is going to be a serious push for a Massachusetts style give away to the insurance industry but I think this will fail as neither the left nor the right will support this.
I thought that was pretty obvious, Tiassa. The people showing up at town hall meetings and making a scene typically aren't Democrats.Because the demographics have changed. And Southern white Republicans were hardly for integration.
Buffalo Roam
09-08-09, 11:17 AM
To be fair, I've browsed some white supremacist and KKK web sites over the years for curiosity's sake and, while I have no idea what political parties what these people actually belong to, they don't seem to be fans of the agendas of either the Republican or Democrat parties.
The KKK was originally a Democrat-filled organization, but they probably aren't now. After all, the Klan advocates discrimination against minorities and Democrats are more likely to support discrimination against white males.
But it is still that same ideology that permeates the ranks of the KKK today, and are the Democrats really that interested in civil rights for the Blacks today? what have they done to bring that about since 1964, they are still treating blacks like they are on a Plantation today, the Democrats continue to insist that the Blacks aren't capable of taking care of themselves, it is apparent with a simple look at the welfare systems, and the quota systems forwarded by the Democrats.
The Democrat ideology is that with out the Democrats taking care of the Blacks, they would not be capable of taking care of themselves.
Prove it my friend, the KKK is still a Democrat filled organization, it roots are Democrat from the South, and it is still that same ideology that permeates it's ranks today, a ideology that is the Antithesis of Conservatism, and the factual history of the Republican Party.When the KKK guys want to join one of the two main parties today, which one do they go to?
Southern dems were a racist party. Republicans were more in the direction of anti-racist, once in the past.
I am also quite sure the KKK saw themselves as conserving things like segregation, domination of whites etc.
Any time the Repulican Party, say back in the 1800s, struggled against racism, slavery, etc., they were not being conservative. They were fighting to change the system. Their was no integrated, non-racist past in the US to return to. They were not advocating traditional values. They were reformers, challenging past assumptions and traditions. And good for them. Then, that is.
Because the demographics have changed. And Southern white Republicans were hardly for integration.
I know there were Democrats who opposed segregation and I'm sure there were Republicans who supported it. But, like it or not, segregation and Jim Crow laws were the political babies of the Democrats.
I know there were Democrats who opposed segregation and I'm sure there were Republicans who supported it. But, like it or not, segregation and Jim Crow laws were the political babies of the Democrats.Who were in general extremely conservative. We are talking about Southern democrats and specific times in history. Which party do you think they would join today?
But it is still that same ideology that permeates the ranks of the KKK today, and are the Democrats really that interested in civil rights for the Blacks today? what have they done to bring that about since 1964, they are still treating blacks like they are on a Plantation today, the Democrats continue to insist that the Blacks aren't capable of taking care of themselves, it is apparent with a simple look at the welfare systems, and the quota systems forwarded by the Democrats.
The Democrat ideology is that with out the Democrats taking care of the Blacks, they would not be capable of taking care of themselves.
I think there's a lot of merit to the claims that certain social policies have resulted in a lot of people becoming dependent on the government. As for the motives behind things like affirmative action, it seems to me that they're based more on the "white people are evil" worldview than beliefs that people of other races are inherently inferior.
Who were in general extremely conservative. We are talking about Southern democrats and specific times in history. Which party do you think they would join today?
I'll give you the same homework assignment that I gave to iceaura: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2361945&postcount=14
TW Scott
09-08-09, 12:50 PM
Their parents were - they switched to Republican after Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned the Democratic Party communist, with race-mixing and government telling everyone who they had to hire and go to school with and so forth.
Nixon's "southern strategy" for Republicans winning elections was to bring in those folks - it worked. And it brought us the Reagan Era, which just crashed the country - maybe we can pick up the pieces, eh?
You do realize that all the civil rights initiatives Kennedy started it took both Johnson and Nixon to finish, Nixon was a huge supporter of civil rights, maybe not becuase of personal belief, but becuase it was what the people wanted and what was right.
spidergoat
09-08-09, 12:57 PM
Southern Democrats are now Republicans because they liked segregation.
madanthonywayne
09-08-09, 01:13 PM
And it brought us the Reagan Era, which just crashed the country - maybe we can pick up the pieces, eh?So the recent economic downturn was caused by Reagan. Why not blame Clinton? Or Carter? Or even Bush? But no, blame Reagan for a recession that occured twenty years after he left office. Does he also get credit for the booms of the eighties and nineties? Or is he only resposible for things that occured after his death?
Southern Democrats are now Republicans because they liked segregation.
An interesting argument considering that demands for segregation declined at the same time as the Southern Democrats; since the two were directly related. White Southerners have tended to vote Republican for quite some time now...yet segregation and Jim Crow laws have yet to reappear. :shrug:
pjdude1219
09-08-09, 01:31 PM
Go to a white supremacist forum and ask the members what they think of George W. Bush. ;)
they don't like him do to his military adventurism
pjdude1219
09-08-09, 01:34 PM
I know there were Democrats who opposed segregation and I'm sure there were Republicans who supported it. But, like it or not, segregation and Jim Crow laws were the political babies of the Democrats.
primarly the dixiecrats who jumped to the republican party
CutsieMarie89
09-08-09, 01:43 PM
Is all this what party did what even the point? It's fear mongering, regardless of what party you come from. Did America begon a communist nation after integration? No far from it. Just like health care reform won't turn this nation into communist Cuba either.
they don't like him do to his military adventurism
And his pro-Israel policies, and because he supports amnesty for illegal aliens, because he supports affirmative action, because he had a hispanic Attorney General, a black Secretary Of State...
My point is that no rational person would consider the GOP as a whole to be "the white man's party" (much less a white supremacist party) unless your racial views are so skewed to the left that you consider anything that isn't completely anti-white to be "white supremacist" by default.
Just like health care reform won't turn this nation into communist Cuba either.
And a few Christian Coalition-endorsed laws won't turn America into a full-blown theocracy, either, so what is everyone afraid of? Right? ;)
CutsieMarie89
09-08-09, 02:57 PM
And a few Christian Coalition-endorsed laws won't turn America into a full-blown theocracy, either, so what is everyone afraid of? Right? ;)
Right to say that is the exact same thing.
iceaura
09-08-09, 03:35 PM
Go to a white supremacist forum and ask the members what they think of George W. Bush It's a little late for regrets.
So the recent economic downturn was caused by Reagan. Why not blame Clinton? Or Carter? Or even Bush? But no, blame Reagan for a recession that occured twenty years after he left office. Does he also get credit for the booms of the eighties and nineties? Thanks to Reaganomics, there were no booms in the 80s and 90s - except for the rich. There were only bubbles and massive debt pileups, with only a hint of possible conservative sanity under Clinton for a couple of years until the fascists hamstrung him.
And the label "Reaganomics" is just a handy one, for the key event in the installation of those policies (Reagan's election) - you are quite correct in noting that much blame belongs with the Gingrichs and Gramms and Delays and Thurmonds and Greenspans and so forth, and note that several of those men switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party as the fundies and bigots shifted their national Party affiliation.
Is all this what party did what even the point? Identifying the poliltical base of the current Republican Party is very much to the point - it's the media operations from that Party who are currently doing as much damage as they can to any attempt at changing the current heatlh care system in any way that would reduce insurance company profits.
My point is that no rational person would consider the GOP as a whole to be "the white man's party" The GOP is the white man's Party - the only major demographic to vote solidly for McCain/Palin was older white men, for example. Subtract white men from the voting booth and the GOP is barely a national organization - certainly not an important political Party. Even more significantly, it's now the white fundie Christian man's Party - and that's why it's so completely lost it's grip on reality of late: those people live in a fantasy world, and the GOP has to pander to it to win elections.
Hence this town hall bs. Hence the heirs of the axe handle community crashing the gates of sane governance once again.
And a few Christian Coalition-endorsed laws won't turn America into a full-blown theocracy, either, So? Nobody is running around having hysterics about "theocracy". Having a good share of the Court, much of Congress, the entire executive branch and major parts of the military leadership in the hands of fundamentalist whackjobs has had its effects, though, and we hope that influence is dissipating.
madanthonywayne
09-08-09, 04:05 PM
The GOP is the white man's Party - the only major demographic to vote solidly for McCain/Palin was older white men, for example. Subtract white men from the voting booth and the GOP is barely a national organization - You might just as well say "throw out the Hindu's, and X party is barely a national organization in India!
quadraphonics
09-08-09, 04:39 PM
You might just as well say "throw out the Hindu's, and X party is barely a national organization in India!
Except that white males only comprise about 33% of the US population (compared to 80-something% of Indians being Hindus).
White males aren't even a plurality of the US population; that would be white females.
John T. Galt
09-08-09, 08:22 PM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
This is the same constituency that's showing up to town halls today. Preaching the same fire and brimstone sermon about how America is turning into Communism.
Joe said: I have not seen fear mongering on the side of the "lefties". I have thus far only seen rational discourse
Let me take a wild guess, you're not actually a lefty you're a moderate.
Because only righties institute the politics of fear in political debate. So!
-Galt
It's a little late for regrets.
Way to dodge the point. Like it or not, most white supremacists aren't beating the drums for the GOP.
The GOP is the white man's Party - the only major demographic to vote solidly for McCain/Palin was older white men, for example. Subtract white men from the voting booth and the GOP is barely a national organization - certainly not an important political Party. Even more significantly, it's now the white fundie Christian man's Party - and that's why it's so completely lost it's grip on reality of late: those people live in a fantasy world, and the GOP has to pander to it to win elections.
My point was that the GOP is not "the white man's party" in terms of racial policy (which is what this thread was supposed to be about), unless you consider not being blatantly anti-white to be the same thing as being pro-white.
Aside from occasional opposition to affirmative action, the GOP doesn't do much to defend the interests of white people. Compare that to the Democrat Party of both yesteryear and today which was and is specifically working to advance the interests of certain racial groups.
So? Nobody is running around having hysterics about "theocracy". Having a good share of the Court, much of Congress, the entire executive branch and major parts of the military leadership in the hands of fundamentalist whackjobs has had its effects, though, and we hope that influence is dissipating.
It looks like at least one person is worried about theocracies: you. Let the government pass a few laws that Pat Robertson has lobbied for and you'll see the hysteria about the impending theocracy and the death of the 1st Amendment.
Buffalo Roam
09-09-09, 12:35 PM
Here is something I found, interesting;
Think about it
I guess I must be on the wrong page…
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars @$75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million ...How good of a deal was that ????
They'll probably do a great job with health care!
spidergoat
09-09-09, 12:41 PM
You aren't counting the sales that came from buying a new car, which stimulated the economy. Saving a little gas was only a fringe benefit.
iceaura
09-09-09, 12:43 PM
Way to dodge the point. Like it or not, most white supremacists aren't beating the drums for the GOP. You recovered from Nixon, stuck us with Reagan for eight years, HW and a rigged war for four, harried to distraction the Clinton crew for eight years, and finally triumphed completely - installing W&Co on top of your Congress and Court for eight years, finally your chosen guys in complete control, leading directly to the current disaster.
It's too late to disown your behaviors. You need to sit down and shut up and stay out of the way while the adults try to clean up your mess. You can apologize later, if we have time to listen.
My point was that the GOP is not "the white man's party" in terms of racial policy The GOP has been winning elections by deliberately appealing to racial bigots and promising to represent their concerns for thirty years and more. Otherwise, the GOP has no visible "racial policy" - actually governing the country is not a GOP priority.
It looks like at least one person is worried about theocracies: you. Let the government pass a few laws that Pat Robertson has lobbied for and you'll see the hysteria about the impending theocracy and the death of the 1st Amendment. Apparently you don't know what a theocracy is. We do, and we're not worried about it in the US.
You recovered from Nixon, stuck us with Reagan for eight years, HW and a rigged war for four, harried to distraction the Clinton crew for eight years, and finally triumphed completely - installing W&Co on top of your Congress and Court for eight years, finally your chosen guys in complete control, leading directly to the current disaster.
It's too late to disown your behaviors. You need to sit down and shut up and stay out of the way while the adults try to clean up your mess. You can apologize later, if we have time to listen.
Who is "you"? I wasn't even alive during the Nixon years and I wasn't eligible to vote until well after Reagan and George H.W. Bush left office. I wasn't a George W. Bush supporter. I don't care for a lot of the nanny-state bullshit advocated by the GOP. What behavior am I trying to disown? What do I need to apologize for?
I think you're just spouting nonsense to avoid answering for your claim that the GOP platform is supported by the average white supremacist.
The GOP has been winning elections by deliberately appealing to racial bigots and promising to represent their concerns for thirty years and more. Otherwise, the GOP has no visible "racial policy" - actually governing the country is not a GOP priority.
Really? I'd like to see your evidence that the all the GOP candidates from the last several decades deliberately catered to white supremacists.
Apparently you don't know what a theocracy is. We do, and we're not worried about it in the US.
I know what a theocracy is. And the reason you're not worried about it is because we aren't even close to becoming one. Nobody in any real position of power is advocating that we become one. The public isn't clamoring for it.
On the other hand, most people in positions of power (presidents, congressthings, etc.) over the last 80 years or so have been advocating increases in the size and influence of the government. They've been getting what they wanted, too. That's why some people are concerned, and rightly so. And, like I said before, if we legislated a few of Pat Robertson's opinions into law, leftists - and a lot of Libertarians, too - would be going apeshit (and rightly so; slippery slope and all).
iceaura
09-10-09, 12:18 PM
I think you're just spouting nonsense to avoid answering for your claim that the GOP platform is supported by the average white supremacist. I made no such claim. I doubt the average white supremacist has much of an idea what the "GOP platform" is.
As the OP illustrates, that crowd is not the best informed or clearest headed bunch on the banana tree.
I made no such claim.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2361887&postcount=10
iceaura
09-23-09, 10:00 AM
I made no such claim.
”
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...7&postcount=10 Notice the word "platform", or any synonym, does not appear.
Most of the people voting for W in 2004 supported the Democratic Party's platform, according to polls. They just didn't know whose platform it was.
The average white supremacist is not really up on the "platform" issue. No one is accusing the voting base of the GOP of knowing what they are doing.
Notice the word "platform", or any synonym, does not appear.
Most of the people voting for W in 2004 supported the Democratic Party's platform, according to polls. They just didn't know whose platform it was.
The average white supremacist is not really up on the "platform" issue. No one is accusing the voting base of the GOP of knowing what they are doing.
White supremacists aren't "most people" and probably pay more attention to news and politics than "most people" (since "most people" aren't conspiracy theorists who believe that the whole world is out to get them).
So, no, you didn't specifically use the word "platform", but the meaning of your post was pretty obvious and pretty obviously wrong. Like I said before; feel free to go to a web site like ********** (which is supposedly the biggest and oldest white supremacist forum around) and ask the members what they think of the GOP and its policies.
EDIT: The name of the white supremacist forum was apparently censored by SciForums' software. Feel free to PM me if you wish to test your claim that the GOP is supported by white supremacists and I'll happily provide the forum's name for you.
iceaura
09-23-09, 01:39 PM
So, no, you didn't specifically use the word "platform", but the meaning of your post was pretty obvious and pretty obviously wrong. It wasn't obvious enough for you, obviously. Are we clear now, that I am claiming dominant and characterizing support for the GOP - its candidates, its quest for power and gaining of same, its conflict with the Democratic Party, and so forth - from the demographic I identified as follows: The GOP has been winning elections by deliberately appealing to racial bigots and promising to represent their concerns for thirty years and more.
- - - - -
The GOP is the white man's Party - the only major demographic to vote solidly for McCain/Palin was older white men, for example. Subtract white men from the voting booth and the GOP is barely a national organization - certainly not an important political Party. Even more significantly, it's now the white fundie Christian man's Party - - -
Are we also clear that your attempted deflections into "theocracy" and "white supremacy" are your own little tangents, not based in my posts?
Because that's obvious, too.
And getting the obvious out of the way, we can begin - if you choose - an actual discussion.
Ganymede
09-23-09, 02:05 PM
White supremacists aren't "most people" and probably pay more attention to news and politics than "most people" (since "most people" aren't conspiracy theorists who believe that the whole world is out to get them).
So, no, you didn't specifically use the word "platform", but the meaning of your post was pretty obvious and pretty obviously wrong. Like I said before; feel free to go to a web site like ********** (which is supposedly the biggest and oldest white supremacist forum around) and ask the members what they think of the GOP and its policies.
EDIT: The name of the white supremacist forum was apparently censored by SciForums' software. Feel free to PM me if you wish to test your claim that the GOP is supported by white supremacists and I'll happily provide the forum's name for you.
Do you support the views of S-tormfront or do you denounce them? Have you spent anytime there debunking their lies?
"Healthcare isn't the only thing that's Communism"
Indeed-do
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg/800px-Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
spidergoat
09-25-09, 03:09 PM
Everything is communism to these people. To bad there are only a few communists left...
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.