Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

There are some people in here who clearly have an issue with the "uppity.....". They simply use the term arrogant as code. Obama has been the best President since Clinton who was the best President since FDR. Teddy Roosevelt was the last great Republican. Eisenhower was a racist, chain smoking, philandering d-bag.

- Cujo

Priceless, hypocritical comment from one complete ********* to another as they deride a black brain surgeon whose resume makes Obama looks unfit to wipe the ***** of a rabid dog like Cujo.

[Unregistered]

Priceless, hypocritical comment from one complete ********* to another as they deride a black brain surgeon whose resume makes Obama looks unfit to wipe the ***** of a rabid dog like Cujo.

the word is dooooooooooooooooosh bag

[Unregistered]

Hilarious. Claiming media bias and quoting the NY Times and Media Matters as the sources. Oh sweet irony. Who next Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews and Georgie Stephanopoulous?

so who (which source) is right? That's the problem and people like you quote these sources not to serve your country but to advance your political agenda.

[Unregistered]

There are some people in here who clearly have an issue with the "uppity.....". They simply use the term arrogant as code. Obama has been the best President since Clinton who was the best President since FDR. Teddy Roosevelt was the last great Republican. Eisenhower was a racist, chain smoking, philandering d-bag.

- Cujo

As usual, liberals don't get it when it comes to Obama. While there maybe some on the right that hate Obama because of the color of his skin, the majority just hate his policies and politics. If racism were rampant on the right, than Carson, Cruz and Rubio would be at the bottom of the Republican primary polls not at the top.

To admit that, Cujo, you'd have to recognize how bigoted you are yourself.

[Unregistered]

There are some people in here who clearly have an issue with the "uppity.....". They simply use the term arrogant as code. Obama has been the best President since Clinton who was the best President since FDR. Teddy Roosevelt was the last great Republican. Eisenhower was a racist, chain smoking, philandering d-bag.

- Cujo

well said. Unfortunately there are too many low IQ people on this forum who will never get it

[Unregistered]

so who (which source) is right? That's the problem and people like you quote these sources not to serve your country but to advance your political agenda.

It's not a matter which is right or wrong. It is a matter of listening to both sides of the issues which means taking the time to educate oneself from a variety of sources, both left and right.

We know the majority in the mainstream media votes Democratic. That's been proven. And that's why conservatives feel the MSM carries water for Democrats. There is most definitely a double standard in reporting the news when it comes to the MSM and how they approach Republicans vs Democrats, especially concerning Obama. Unless they live in a bubble, conservatives listen to that perspective every time they turn on the news. But how many liberals spend any time listening to the few conservative media outlets? And how many liberals, like those at Media Matters, think it's their duty to shut down conservative media?

[Unregistered]

I see these constant swipes at Obama and then I look at the Republican line-up of candidates. Give me 16 more years of Obama. That is the kookiest collection of characters I've ever seen. Real-life caricatures of ignorance and deranged and dangerous beliefs. Trump acting like the sophomore frat boy who gets his chapter kicked off the campus mocking the disabled, Carson apparently on qualudes with a steady stream of psychotic ideas, and Cruz the evangelical neo-Nazi.

absolutely. ...and they are at the top of the republican polls- what does that say about the level of ignorance in our country? Sad, pathetic people who really need to educate themselves or just shut up.

[Unregistered]

Drug use actually was at its highest levels from 1870-early 1900's. Opium, Cocaine, and other drugs were sold over the counter. Yet these were some of the most productive years of the country and when we established the nation as an economic and military powerhouse.

The Harrison Narcotic Act (as did Prohibition) created an underground market for drugs that resulted in organized crime becoming an economic force in its own right. A certain percentage of the population will always be inclined to use intoxicants. This has been a fact since the earliest recorded efforts of civilization. It varies from culture to culture (from khat chewing to Opium smoking) but every culture has indulged in mind altering adventures. Prohibition is merely a denial of reality and resulted in mass incarceration and several lost generations among African Americans. If you are white and powerful and sell coke you get off with a slap on the wrist. Black and in possession of personal use amounts of crack you get 10 years. The war on drugs is a gross failure.

- Cujo

You make my point for me. If , as you claim, that drug use was higher during the " most productive years of the country " then it indicates the ability for people at that time to control their usage. People stopped using drugs openly, society cleansed itself, when people realized the negative effects of the behavior. Just as people used to chew tobacco and spit all over the place ( laws made like no spitting on sidewalks ) . Spittoons were nearly everywhere, and when society got tired of the spitting, in eateries , theatres, public buildings etc. , and laws put on the books ,the behavior stopped. When was the last time you saw a spittoon ? People still chew tobacco.

In order for organized crime to make a profit, there has to be a market. The market is made up of people with weakness. The government passed laws because those drugs had a negative effect on society. They also believed at the time that alcohol was equally disruptive to society. If you look at the statistics regarding health issues , accidents and deaths because of alcohol use, it isn't a pretty picture today.

" mass incarceration "
We hear that term tossed about by Progressives time and time again. " mass incarceration " implies large groups of people rounded up and put under lock and key. This has not been the case with drugs . Drug use is an individual choice, and users can be of any race, creed , ethnicity, etc. The fact that a larger proportion of a certain individual group indulges in behavior different from other groups does not mean mass incarceration. It means that the more people indulge, the higher the chance that they will get caught.

The real truth can be found in the reason certain groups are more likely to indulge than others. Lack of education, skills for employment, family cohesiveness, and of course, the remnants of Great Society concepts and the Welfare State.

The War on Drugs is only a failure because a percentage of our population are unable to control their individual behavior. Just like some of the highest rates of obesity exist in areas that revive the highest percentage of SNAP benefits, of which 60 % of all purchases are sugar laden.

[Unregistered]

absolutely. ...and they are at the top of the republican polls- what does that say about the level of ignorance in our country? Sad, pathetic people who really need to educate themselves or just shut up.

Calling someone sad and pathetic isn't productive way to come to an understanding. The more you do, the more the far right bunkers down. And, the more the moderate-right swings further away. One thing that won't be done is to "shut up".

[Unregistered]

Calling someone sad and pathetic isn't productive way to come to an understanding. The more you do, the more the far right bunkers down. And, the more the moderate-right swings further away. One thing that won't be done is to "shut up".

So how do you propose changing this mindset?

[Unregistered]

So how do you propose changing this mindset?

1) Educate yourself. Know they enemy. And, by educating yourself, I mean read conservative and liberal-minded publications. The world is too complex to only read one side of an issue.
2) Keep it professional.
3) Understand no single candidate you will agree with 100% of the time (although, interestingly, when doing a "isidewith" query recently, I disagreed with Bernie on 99% of issues). So, pick your battles.

[Unregistered]

Calling someone sad and pathetic isn't productive way to come to an understanding. The more you do, the more the far right bunkers down. And, the more the moderate-right swings further away. One thing that won't be done is to "shut up".

I love the claim that the MSM is biased to the left. Same thing has been said about NPR which gives equal time to all sides. Just heard recently a 25 minute interview with a Conservative Republican member of the House. But the funniest think is Faux News Polls which have every contender but Fiorina leading Clinton by a wide margin. All the legitimate polls ie Gallup Quinipiac UNH Marquette etc have Clinton a 4-5% lead with Trump showing the worst (his negatives preclude the possibility of winning the General Election). Rubio appears to have the best chance. Not a big fan but at least he doesn't have crazy ideas.

The bottom line though is that the Republican primary and convention machinery is incapable of nominating an electable candidate due to the domination of the religious right and their rigidly dogmatic stances on issues that insure defeat from a country that has a majority of voters that have become socially liberal. Most voters really don't care about abortion and gay marriage when it comes to voting.

- Cujo

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

1) Educate yourself. Know they enemy. And, by educating yourself, I mean read conservative and liberal-minded publications. The world is too complex to only read one side of an issue.
2) Keep it professional.
3) Understand no single candidate you will agree with 100% of the time (although, interestingly, when doing a "isidewith" query recently, I disagreed with Bernie on 99% of issues). So, pick your battles.

I'd also add to the above, understand you cannot change a mindset, nor should you try in most cases. I, for one, do not want a Nation where we are in 100% of agreement. That's not what this country is. This is, I think, the most diverse nation in the world when it comes to race, religion, and finances. By forcing a group think on everyone, all it does is alienate.

I admit to not being liberal, but I can see where BClinton did some good things. I can see that GWB did some good, and some bad, as well.

[Unregistered]

I love the claim that the MSM is biased to the left. Same thing has been said about NPR which gives equal time to all sides. Just heard recently a 25 minute interview with a Conservative Republican member of the House. But the funniest think is Faux News Polls which have every contender but Fiorina leading Clinton by a wide margin. All the legitimate polls ie Gallup Quinipiac UNH Marquette etc have Clinton a 4-5% lead with Trump showing the worst (his negatives preclude the possibility of winning the General Election). Rubio appears to have the best chance. Not a big fan but at least he doesn't have crazy ideas.

The bottom line though is that the Republican primary and convention machinery is incapable of nominating an electable candidate due to the domination of the religious right and their rigidly dogmatic stances on issues that insure defeat from a country that has a majority of voters that have become socially liberal. Most voters really don't care about abortion and gay marriage when it comes to voting.

- Cujo

- Cujo

Well, finally, after reading about 1,000 of your posts, I find something I can agree on. I agree that by making religion too much of a talking point, it's going to make it hard to win a general election.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;1709796]well said. Unfortunately there are too many low IQ people on this forum who wil never get it[/QUTE]

And there you have it. A typical liberal who is convinced his IQ is above those politically opposed to him.

Pew Research Center: "“Republicans generally outperformed Democrats on the current quiz.* On 13 of the 19 questions, Republicans score significantly higher than Democrats and there are no questions on which Democrats did better than Republicans.* In past knowledge quizzes, partisan differences have been more muted, though Republicans often have scored somewhat higher than Democrats.”*

Or in other words, as time goes on the dumbing down of America affects Democrats more than it does Republicans. And then there are these recent tidbits.

- A recent study out of Oxford shows that Strong Republicans have almost a five and a half point IQ advantage over strong Democrats, and even moderate Republicans have nearly 3 and a half points more IQ than their moderate Democrat counterparts.*

- A researcher at Yale recently startled himself by discovering Tea Partiers know more about science than the general public,

- New York Times*headline “Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated.”* Shattering widespread myths, that survey revealed that Tea Party supporters were more likely to possess a college degree than their counterparts (23% to 15%), and also more likely to have completed post-graduate studies (14% to 10%).* Tea Partiers were also more likely to have completed “some college” by a 33% to 28% margin, and substantially less likely to have not completed high school than non-supporters (3% versus 12%), or to possess only a high school degree (26% versus 35%).*

- Libertarians, who tend to identify with Republicans, are the political group with the highest IQ.