[Harry Rex Vonner]

MSNBC has a new mission. They are now appealing to blacks, young voters, and single women to get out and vote in record numbers in order to "save" the US Senate for the Democrats and Obama.

To be perfectly honest rather than politically correct, it would be both a disgrace and a tragedy to have such an important election decided by the votes of those who, let's be honest, contribute so little to the funding and operation of the country.

[Bob Seger]

If my hard working, morally correct democrat grandfather were alive today he would be appalled and sickened to be associated with anything that resembles todays democratic party.

Can anyone pinpoint in time exactly when this party drifted off course to what it has become today? Was it during the Bill Clinton era? It just seems like all of a sudden I looked up and "Bam" here it is. I could never have imagined 20 years ago that this nation would be doing the stuff that's going on now...As an example this stuff going on in Houston is not only mind boggling, but frightening to the point that it should have even the most liberal person in this country alarmed.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The truth is that today's Democrat Party depends upon the votes and support of the fringe elements of society for their success. This often works because their "constituency" is either mad at the country or looking for more handouts from the country- takers and not contributors.

The proud Democrat Party of the past up to and including the Kennedy years was often the backbone of industrial and economic progress in this country. I believe it started too seriously change during Johnson's tenure as president with all the advent of the many welfare programs. I believe that, from his personal history, Johnson was no fan of these programs but he soon learned that, to win elections, his party had to support them. In other words, buy votes through dependence.

Now, the Democrat Party cannot win an honest election without the votes of their "dependents". Coddle the minorities and the downcast and haul them to the voting booth for a return on the "investment".

And, that is fact and not political correctness.

[64SUR]

If my hard working, morally correct democrat grandfather were alive today he would be appalled and sickened to be associated with anything that resembles todays democratic party.

Can anyone pinpoint in time exactly when this party drifted off course to what it has become today? Was it during the Bill Clinton era? It just seems like all of a sudden I looked up and "Bam" here it is. I could never have imagined 20 years ago that this nation would be doing the stuff that's going on now...As an example this stuff going on in Houston is not only mind boggling, but frightening to the point that it should have even the most liberal person in this country alarmed.

I think it started under Reagan...you remember when Aids arrived under Reagon.. " BAM " hell in a hand basket begin.....:igiveup:

[TheRealThing]

If my hard working, morally correct democrat grandfather were alive today he would be appalled and sickened to be associated with anything that resembles todays democratic party.

Can anyone pinpoint in time exactly when this party drifted off course to what it has become today? Was it during the Bill Clinton era? It just seems like all of a sudden I looked up and "Bam" here it is. I could never have imagined 20 years ago that this nation would be doing the stuff that's going on now...As an example this stuff going on in Houston is not only mind boggling, but frightening to the point that it should have even the most liberal person in this country alarmed.

The truth is that today's Democrat Party depends upon the votes and support of the fringe elements of society for their success. This often works because their "constituency" is either mad at the country or looking for more handouts from the country- takers and not contributors.

The proud Democrat Party of the past up to and including the Kennedy years was often the backbone of industrial and economic progress in this country. I believe it started too seriously change during Johnson's tenure as president with all the advent of the many welfare programs. I believe that, from his personal history, Johnson was no fan of these programs but he soon learned that, to win elections, his party had to support them. In other words, buy votes through dependence.

Now, the Democrat Party cannot win an honest election without the votes of their "dependents". Coddle the minorities and the downcast and haul them to the voting booth for a return on the "investment".

And, that is fact and not political correctness.

Agree for the most part. However, not to give Johnson a pass, but when he agreed to put forth the idea of America "buying out" poverty, there were only a scant 336 thousand people on food based welfare assistance across the whole land. I actually heard some debate coming out of the Congress which held that the tenets of the "Great Society", would actually encourage folks not to work, and that argument was argued down by some of the leading Dems of the day. And, for the short sighted it seemed innocuous enough, after all, this great land was flush with cash, and so they insisted we could well afford to help less than half a million along. Those dependent on some form of government assistance has exploded since the Johnson administration, as now fully 50% of all Americans receive some form of government assistance.

See, Republicans have always found themselves between the Devil and the deep blue sea with regard to handouts. To deny the downtrodden this help would have made Republicans look callous and uncaring. Of course the real problem was that there were those in the Congress who were willing to exploit that in a way that publically humiliated and defamed the reputation of their political opponents. And Republicans have had to back up as gracefully as possible since that day. If on the other hand, the Dems had remained united in service and in love of country with their Republican counterparts, and not used such chessy tactics to gain a political 'edge', things would be much better around here. I mean, how does one handle that kind of thing? The members of the US Congress are supposed to be statesmen and gentlemen. So, to avoid making the Congress look like animal house, Republicans have been taking it on the chin for 5 decades now.

But, yes. I saw the things change during the Reagan years. Political cartoons characterized President Reagan in as uncomely a light as was possible, and still expect said characterizations to remain recognizable. News media were continually on the hunt for something to rag on him about and having dug something up did not hesitate to put it on the evening news. Likewise, members of congress first began to get ugly in their election season dealings during this time. IMO, it was at that point that the Democrats of our fathers lost their soul.

But they, liberal/progressives, didn't bang second gear until the Clinton era. That's when the gloves came off and there were no prisoners taken. In short, the liberal sparks that first flamed up during the Johnson Presidency had become a sustainable fire during the coming years until present. Republicans have been waiting for the voting public to rescue them since those days and I saw the birth of that movement in the mid-terms of 2010. Since that time Dems have been in full assault mode slamming the Tea Party and doing their best to besmirch anything conservative. When one stops to think about it, it doesn't seem possible to have worked. The premise is this, everything and everybody (other than liberals and their programs) that has happened in this land since it's inception is racist, selfish, or militarily imperialistic. And only liberals are to be trusted. I don't know about you all but thinking of that sort convicts me and my entire family down through history.

In two weeks America has yet another opportunity to give these nation haters the heave ho. I hope enough will find it within them to put the good of the country ahead of a few perks they have been promised by this administration. I know that my family is still waiting to see that 2,500 dollar health insurance savings, LOL.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Were starting to see some races the dems considered safe now turning very even.
Ill admit, I did not expect Hagan to be in trouble, but shes in major trouble.
On the flip side, there is cause for concern for a few races the repubs all but had locked up, but I don't see any scenario where repubs aren't in complete control of congress.

Bluegrass poll has already moved 3% this month from Grimey to Mitch. The rest of the polls all have him ahead comfortably or just within the margin of error.

[Granny Bear]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/...is-county/

[Bob Seger]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/...is-county/

Just an "honest" mistake I am sure!!!:eyeroll:

Seeing that they don't do business like that in Chicago.

[Granny Bear]

Can you believe that? I know I will take flack over posting from fox news, but guess what......I couldn't find it anywhere else!

[Bob Seger]

Can you believe that? I know I will take flack over posting from fox news, but guess what......I couldn't find it anywhere else!

Well if anybody wants to find out the concealed truth about anything, you have no choice but to watch Fox...If the rest of the media was competant in doing their job to begin with, (and that is to just report the news) there wouldn't be a reason for Fox to exist.

People are able to watch any channel they want, so aint it funny that Fox News has more viewers than all of the other news sources put together?

[RunItUpTheGut]

I always find it funny that minorities, especially blacks and Latinos, as well as the gay community consistently support the same part that would have lynched them 70 years ago. Some people have short memories, or rather don't care, but why would you support a party that enslaved your ancestors?
The response is usually that its not the same party, but I call hogwash. There still radical extremist, but now there smart enough to pick up votes from people they don't care about.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Well if anybody wants to find out the concealed truth about anything, you have no choice but to watch Fox...If the rest of the media was competant in doing their job to begin with, (and that is to just report the news) there wouldn't be a reason for Fox to exist.

People are able to watch any channel they want, so aint it funny that Fox News has more viewers than all of the other news sources put together?

Go to any comment section on the internet about a political story. Whether it be CNN, NBC, Yahoo, WKYT, YouTube Videos, etc, and youll see liberal coming out of the wood works talking about how ridiculous "FAUX" News is.
Makes one wonder if the liberals don't place spam bots on ever comment section to counter there ass beatings in the ratings.
They never have a comeback for the great ratings at Fox, that blows away everyone else combined.
I think this is a key clue that people vote blind because there told to. Vote dem because they care about your welfare, your gay marriage, your pretty trees, and yet they don't have the first clue as to whats really going on. They just follow the leader.

[TheRealThing]

Can you believe that? I know I will take flack over posting from fox news, but guess what......I couldn't find it anywhere else!

They keep cheating and they keep getting caught. Of course they've got a reasonable out to use as an excuse but, if anybody is guilty of election fraud, it's the Dems. The Acorn voting scandal alone would have sunk another administration but, when the main stream media is committed to report only stories that flatter Democrats, one can see how they could continue to get by with tactics that cross the line.

There is only one reason Dems oppose voter ID's, they're the ones benefiting from voter/registration fraud. I don't get it, why is it unreasonable for those who do it right to expect our elections to be fair? We are a nation of laws are we not? The video below does not deal specifically with voter ID, but with Mr Obama's stated position of his intentions to enforce the laws of this land.

[TheRealThing]

I always find it funny that minorities, especially blacks and Latinos, as well as the gay community consistently support the same part that would have lynched them 70 years ago. Some people have short memories, or rather don't care, but why would you support a party that enslaved your ancestors?
The response is usually that its not the same party, but I call hogwash. There still radical extremist, but now there smart enough to pick up votes from people they don't care about.

Promises, promises. That and the fact that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have lined their pockets playing the ultimate Judas Goats.

[TheRealVille]

I always find it funny that minorities, especially blacks and Latinos, as well as the gay community consistently support the same part that would have lynched them 70 years ago. Some people have short memories, or rather don't care, but why would you support a party that enslaved your ancestors?
The response is usually that its not the same party, but I call hogwash. There still radical extremist, but now there smart enough to pick up votes from people they don't care about.

You do know that the parties flipped years ago, right? Abe Lincoln was a liberal.

[TheRealThing]

You do know that the parties flipped years ago, right? Abe Lincoln was a liberal.

If Abe were alive today he would be a loyal FOX News watcher. And Abe was not in favor of welfare. He espoused some Classical Liberal views, among them were the free market thinking of Adam Smith. There are light years of difference between the liberal thinking of Abraham Lincoln and the liberal thinking of Barack Obama. But, though Lincoln was certainly not perfect, he put country over personal political views, soberly recognizing that he was a figure passing through history.

Barack Obama on the other hand and IMO the consummate egoist, feels like he is here to change history and "transform the face of America." Where in Abe's day, the US Congress enjoyed the authority of being a coequal branch of the federal government, the Dems of our time have usurped the power of the Congress in an attempt to 'rule' from the modern liberal perspective rather than to serve in that capacity.

I could never accept a scenario where Honest Abe would sanction a media based propaganda program. Using the divisive tactics we see in this time where white folks are the object of distrust and scorn of minorities. Where the police are openly portrayed as racist, and working for one's living is downplayed as optional by a political party. Much less be part of that party.

[RunItUpTheGut]

You do know that the parties flipped years ago, right? Abe Lincoln was a liberal.

I don't believe so.
Just saying, it was the democrats who had the majority of atrocities in our history.

[TheRealVille]

I don't believe so.
Just saying, it was the democrats who had the majority of atrocities in our history.

Look at history. Theses 2 parties are 100% flipped than they were over a 100-150 years ago. History books even show this fact. So, more than a hundred years ago, you would be a democrat, with your ideas. That's why Abe was a republican way back when he was alive, he was liberal thinking.

[Granny Bear]

Abe Lincoln was forward thinking, honest and fair.....

Don't sound like ANY party to me.

[Bob Seger]

Was Robert C. Byrd a republican when he was a member of the KKK? Just asking(don't want to spend the time to research it) because I don't know if he switched parties at one time or not. Or was he always a democrat?

[TheRealVille]

Abe Lincoln was forward thinking, honest and fair.....

Don't sound like ANY party to me.

When looking at Abe's history, his politics and thinking were in line with liberal thought. I'm in Florida enjoying the Food and Wine Festival, and I'm not going to try to delve into the points of Abe on an iPhone, but it's easy to find his policies, and if you look, he was definitely liberal thinking. In slave times, republicans were the liberal type thinkers. Like I said, it's easy to search and find that the party's flipped at some point. Anyone that studied political science, and American history in school knows this.

[TheRealVille]

Granny, I did take a little time to find you and RIUTG a link that tells a little about the flip.


http://m.livescience.com/34241-democrati...forms.html

[Harry Rex Vonner]

TheRealVille likes to cite those government school books that maximize Marty King and minimize George Washington. I expect the new editions of these books to tell our children that Christopher Columbus was transgender. Of course, that assumes that they can find room between essays on Margaret Sanger and Trayvon Martin to mention Columbus at all.

[TheRealThing]

TheRealVille likes to cite those government school books that maximize Marty King and minimize George Washington. I expect the new editions of these books to tell our children that Christopher Columbus was transgender. Of course, that assumes that they can find room between essays on Margaret Sanger and Trayvon Martin to mention Columbus at all.

He also likes to bring in some obscure comparison which takes the discussion in a different direction. Abraham Lincoln, who entertained classic liberal views chief among them being a strict adherence to limited government FTR, despite his many contradictions loved America above all.

The last few lines from AL's Gettysburg Address tell us who he really was;

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. <snip> The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Here again we see the thoughts of a great man falling back on the very same concerns upon which the founding fathers fretted. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were famously quoted as to how long this great experiment would stand. One thing is sure, if all men are equal according to the vision of Abraham Lincoln, this runaway liberal bent to legislate men into equality based on minority interests, (that is the governmental elevation of the few at the expense of the majority), reverses the equation. In other words we are a nation based on equality of opportunity, not equality of financial circumstance. Lincoln was no modern day Democrat. And, if he held true to his historical reputation, he'd have stomped on any in-party affiliations with the likes of MSNBC.

[TheRealVille]

^Of course, you two don't buy what is real history. You want it slanted to suit your ideals, which are far right radical, not with what's real. TRT, I find it pretty funny that you like to bold the all men created equal stuff, yet nothing in you, or your history here even alludes that you actually believe in it.

[TheRealThing]

^Of course, you two don't buy what is real history. You want it slanted to suit your ideals, which are far right radical, not with what's real. TRT, I find it pretty funny that you like to bold the all men created equal stuff, yet nothing in you, or your history here even alludes that you actually believe in it.

Yeah, we're both getting a laugh right now I guess. I know I find it pretty funny that a bought and paid for newly converted Democrat, whose glaring short coming is a marked insatiability for information that has been properly forced through the liberal strainer. And who parrots that rationale straight off of the left wing web sites as if they are above rational circumspection, is now more than comfortable with being told what to think. You are in addition, more than comfortable in passing over the obvious (such as my statement regarding equality of opportunity, which guarantees equal treatment under the law) in order to pin the racist or intolerant label on any and all targets of opportunity.

Both parties have tried to claim Abraham Lincoln and just as remarkably Ronald Reagan. Obama went on a two month long tear in an attempt draw that ridiculous distinction at the end of his first term. My opinions are my own and my posts reflect that fact. We both know the best you can do is attack me at the personal level as you have done here yet again. It rolls right off my back.

[TheRealVille]

^ From the guy that isn't smart enough to know that "God" in the official documents refer to each citizens particular god, not just the christian's God. No thanks.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

^ From the guy that isn't smart enough to know that "God" in the official documents refer to each citizens particular god, not just the christian's God. No thanks.

One who actually thinks Clueless Barbie is a legitimate candidate should not question the "smarts" of anyone and certainly not TheRealThing.

And, by the way, what do you mean by "official documents" and how are you qualified to interpret the minds of the framers? And, please don't cite some ridiculous liberal rag.

[TheRealThing]

^ From the guy that isn't smart enough to know that "God" in the official documents refer to each citizens particular god, not just the christian's God. No thanks.

From the Declaration of Independence----

1st mention of God
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

That reference to God looks singular to me. It's laughable to argue more than one god established the Laws of Nature and each man's individual inalienable rights.


2nd mention of God
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

God referenced in the singular sense as being the Creator of all men.


3rd mention of God
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

By this document we see that God is the God of Nature, the Creator of all men and the Supreme Judge. So, if it's all the same to you I am very content to wallow in my ignorance of the universe as it applies to the Creator and Judge of men. LOL, I suppose smart is a matter of perspective.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I don't think the framers had Mohammad, Barrack Obama, or the Sugarplum Fairy in mind when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.