Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Good Guy Greg
949 Followers
John Donovan
5568 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
sue mayern
2920 Followers
dachipzFeb 1, 2012
My blood pressure still skyrockets when I hear the name 'Nixon'. As for Obama... the republicans are so bloodthirsty that they're slitting each others' throats now. He can hardly be blamed for that.
concusionFeb 1, 2012
that commie Obama must be putting crazy powder in our water!!!
cme884Feb 1, 2012
If I were to pick a divisive president, I'd probably go with Lincoln. You can't exactly blame him (nor can you blame Obama for the idiocy of the right), but the country was literally *divided* after Lincoln was elected.
grannysrightFeb 1, 2012
Ummm Lincoln was the 'right'. The idiocy was the Democrats who demanded to keep their slaves, because they felt it was their right to own a human being as if they were no more than cattle in their fields.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 1, 2012
Yeah, because both the Democrat and Republican parties of 2012 are *exactly* the same as the parties of Lincolon and Jackson.
apokalyps2547Feb 1, 2012
I love how conservatives try to claim credit for Lincoln *and* the Confederacy's "states rights" mantra.
jhbarrFeb 1, 2012
I will be stealing this saying and using it for myself.
grannysrightFeb 1, 2012
If you ever bothered to read history as it actually happened you would know that the right, Republicans, have brought more help to civil rights than any Democrat. Democrats started the KKK and they are still closet racists today by trying to keep the black and all minorities beholden to the government dole.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mcarrelFeb 1, 2012
Some history:
Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat and he gave up Democratic control in the South to promote civil rights.
One example, Jessie Helms was a Democratic US senator from North Carolina who switched to the Republican party as a result.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
Strom Thurmond
apokalyps2547Feb 1, 2012
Conservatives are obsessed with confusing the issue using party labels. The segregationists, the KKK, etc. were southern conservatives. Southern Democrats were conservatives and Northern Democrats were liberals, just as southern Republicans were conservatives and northern Republicans were liberals.
You think the deep south was a bastion of liberalism in the '60s? And all those millions of people just spontaneously flipped to being conservatives in the '70s? Get a clue.
The anti-civil-rights south has always been conservative, the only thing that has changed is which party is courting that vote.
concusionFeb 1, 2012
Nothing they did in the past excuses their current stance on equal rights. Hey I murdered 20 people yesterday, but I gave money to charity last week!!!
generalbulldogFeb 2, 2012
It's not as black and white as Democrat=Liberal and Republican=Conservative when talking about the entire history of American politics.
grannysrightFeb 3, 2012
That may be true to a degree but it is not as far apart as our fine folk here would have one believe.
emkaysmithFeb 2, 2012
"Democrats started the KKK"
No, *White Southerners* started the KKK, not "Democrats." And if *you* read your history, you would know that the state with the largest KKK membership c.1920 (the peak of KKK membership during its entire history) was INDIANA, which regularly voted Republican.
If you people are going to keep insisting on this nonsense that Republicans & Democrats have always been the same, then how do you account for the fact that most Black voters support the Democratic Party? And are you saying that Black voters must therefore be KKK supporters?
And there are a helluva lot more White Americans on government assistance of one kind or another than Blacks.
Yeah, just keep grasping at them straws there, Granny.
grannysrightFeb 3, 2012
Not grasping at anything, you can ignore the history of the Democrat KKK members all you want, it doesn't change anything.
The reason the blacks vote Democrat is because the Democrats keep giving the food stamps instead of jobs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
salbatrossFeb 1, 2012
No, Lincoln was Republican. Not right-wing.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
No, Lincoln was not the "right". He was a Republican, yes. But Republicans in the 1800's championed Progressive causes, ie abolition of slavery and preservation of the Union (Federalist undertone).
The Democrats of the day, especially the Southern Dems were the "Right".
grannysrightFeb 1, 2012
Only in your mind and that same Democrat thinking has some recognizable names in it since then too. Bryd, Gore, President Wilson, Gov. George Wallace.
If it wasn't for President Dwight Eisenhower we would still have segregated schools.
You can run but you can't hide.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
You can try to twist the truth. But abolition of salvery and preservation of the Union, against "states rights", are progressive in nature.
grannysrightFeb 1, 2012
No they are not. You need to study your history.
apokalyps2547Feb 1, 2012
grannysight,
So you think the "states rights" / smaller-federal-government / personal property rights foundations of the Confederacy was.... liberal?
You think the deep south was a bastion of liberalism from 1600 to 1970 and then spontaneously flipped to being conservative (while still keeping the same "states rights" / smaller-federal-government / personal property rights philosophy? Am I understanding you correctly?
Parroting over and over "No, you need to study history" isn't an argument. It's doubly pathetic when the person saying that clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
What the hell is salvery? I meant slavery. Damned tpyo's.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
Are you serious? I need to study harder? Man are you clueless.
concusionFeb 1, 2012
lol, welcome to grannyland
grannysrightFeb 2, 2012
You can try to hide what the Democrats continued to do right on up to today if you want, but the Democrats have always tried to keep the black community needy and working for them, by putting them on welfare and always having to have government handouts. That is still slavery and you guys head the parade.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rocannonFeb 1, 2012
and buried in that excellent article is this cogent insight:
"...They (presidents) remain, however, a product of their times rather than a driver of the underlying currents that raised them to leadership positions. As much as we might want to lay the blame on Obama, Bush, or any other president, the actual blame or glory falls on us all."
It's what I've been saying for years... WE elect our representatives, including Presidents. It's ourselves at whom we should be pointing fingers.
talkingptsmemoFeb 1, 2012
Truth
novenatorFeb 1, 2012
Obama has bent over backwards trying to appease the right wing. I guess not a complete and total surrender is tantamount to being "polarizing" in their tiny little heads.
Angry_MuppetFeb 1, 2012
Maybe he should try not appeasing them. Showing a spine would do wonders.
novenatorFeb 1, 2012
Agreed. From capitulating on a public health insurance option that anyone could buy into, to weakening Wall Street reform, to surrendering on tax cuts for the rich, to agreeing to create an extra-constitutional "super- committee" to rape medicare, Obama really needs to find his nuts and start punching back. The country can't take any more "compromise" with the corporate forces that have led it to the brink of catastrophe.
missinglinkFeb 1, 2012
Not quite. Remember, Obama had a huge majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a large part of his Presidency. On issues like a public option, extending the Bush tax cuts, Card Check and Cap & Trade it was moderates in his own party - blue dogs and/or rural populist Democrats - who threw the cogs in the machine.
A unified Democratic caucus could have literally passed anything for more than a year.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 1, 2012
Simply not true. The Democratic majority in the Senate and the House was crippled by rules in those bodies that allow the minority to obstruct most everything the majority wants to do.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/
With a Democratic supermajority in place the GOP broke records putting barriers in place to Congressional action.
There is no such thing a filibuster-proof given the way the rules are written
missinglinkFeb 1, 2012
Nope. Cloture ends any filibuster. It requires 60 votes, but if you get it, debate is limited.
Now, I get they call these "Republican Filibusters" because the GOP stood together in support of them, but when the Dems had 60 Senators, no filibuster could have worked without at least one Dem standing with Republicans.
I could give you specific names for Dems that opposed Obama on every major policy effort, but I'm not going to take the time. Google Max Baucus and Public Option...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 1, 2012
Democrats never had 60 Senators. When Franken came in in July of 2009 there were 60, but Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed and was not able to vote at that time.
And yes Democrats are different from Republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with what their party leadership (Rush Limbaugh for the GOP) tells them to vote for.
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012
Ummmm.. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Spector (ran as a republican), George Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski... should I go on??
treehugger87Feb 1, 2012
When Democrats allegedly had 60 Senators Arlen Spector was one of them.
drich255Feb 2, 2012
Technically, the Democratic Party never had 60 Senators during that time. They had 58 Democratic Senators before Senator Kennedy's death. But they also had two Independents that caucused with them (Lieberman and Sanders I believe). So they did have 60 votes if they were all united. The GOP only had 40 Senators. Scott Brown became the 41st GOP Senator when he replaced Kennedy. And the Democrats scrambled like crazy to get what they could passed before Scott Brown was sworn in. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35235106/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/scott-brown-st-gop-senator-sworn/#.TynaGMgatyU
In they end, Democrats voted for the Health Care Bill and President Obama signed it. If they aren't happy with it, they shouldn't have rushed it, voted for it, or signed it.
drich255Feb 2, 2012
A slight correction to what I wrote. They had 58 Democratic senators and 2 Independents until the special election was held to replace Ted Kennedy. In the short term, his seat was filled by Paul G. Kirk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_G._Kirk#U.S._Senate
miklkitFeb 2, 2012
Lieberman voted with the republicons, not the Democrats. He was even considered for the republicon vice presidency.
drich255Feb 2, 2012
@miklkit
Lieberman might have voted with the GOP on some issues, but he caucused with the democrats.
Following the election, Lieberman struck a deal with Democratic leadership allowing him to keep his seniority and chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In return, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless he asked permission of Majority Whip Richard Durbin.[citation needed] He is free to vote as he pleases on policy matters.[citation needed] Along with Bernie Sanders, Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats gave them a 51–49 majority in the Senate, leaving a slim one Senator majority to control the Senate in the 110th Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_election
bookantFeb 1, 2012
"and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a large part of his Presidency."
Flat out lie.
(A) There were never 60 Democrats, that number always included several independents.
(B) Norm Coleman managed to drag out his recount lawsuits and prevented Al Franken from being seated until July, 2009. Ted Kennedy died in August. So even if we include the independents, the number hit 60 for exactly one month. No more.
usarugulaFeb 1, 2012
Q: How long did Obama have a Filibuster proof majority?
A: 49 days, from July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009
Democrats had a supermajority for 49 days: from July 7, 2009, when Al Franken was sworn in, until August 25, 2009, when Ted Kennedy died. But that supermajority was in name only, as Ted Kennedy was too sick to carry out his duties.
Meanwhile, during the seven months leading up to the supermajority, Republicans set the stage by filibustering everything and mounting a massive PR campaign to scare voters with nonsense (remember death panels?), and those voters, in turn, scared moderate congressional members, including a couple of dozen Blue Dog Democrats. A supermajority that eventually gained power on paper was rendered moot in practice.
Stop believing talking points and know your history.
novenatorFeb 1, 2012
Even during those 49 days, there were only 58 Democrats. The two independents who caucus with them were mixed though. Bernie Sanders can be counted on to do the right thing, but jumpin' Joe Lieberman is a Republican in Independents' clothing.
xwhyFeb 1, 2012
I'll grant you Lieberman if you count the ladies from Maine. It doesn't take much to get them to vote with the Dem majority.
novenatorFeb 1, 2012
Well, if you want to play that game, lol, I can name at least half a dozen Democrats who are more conservative than most Republicans!
Ben Nelson
Blanche Lincoln
Byron Dorgan
Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
Jon Tester
Joe Manchin
That's just a starter. The ladies from Maine are probably mainstream conservative, they just seem "centrist" because the Republican Party is so insanely tilted to the extreme right at the moment.
drich255Feb 2, 2012
Ted Kennedy's seat was temporarily filled by Paul G. Kirk until Scott Brown's election (September 24, 2009 – February 4, 2010). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_G._Kirk#U.S._Senate
Technically, the Democrats did only have 58 senators, but the 2 independents caucused with them, so that gave them the potential of 60 votes (filibuster-proof) if they were united.
The GOP only had 40 senators until Scott Brown's election.
apokalyps2547Feb 1, 2012
"a filibuster-proof majority"
58 isn't 60. It's incredible how many people don't understand that.
drich255Feb 2, 2012
Yes, but when the two Independants caucus with your party, you can count their votes too. So 58 (D) + 2 (I) = 60 votes (if united).
That fall-winter (late 2009 to early 2010), the GOP only had 40 senators, until the election of Scott Brown (who replace the fill in for Ted Kennedy's vacant seat, Senator Kirk).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_G._Kirk#U.S._Senate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35235106/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/scott-brown-st-gop-senator-sworn/#.TynaGMgatyUComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Feb 3, 2012
So you're counting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat? The SAME Joe Lieberman that campaigned for John McCain?!
drich255Feb 3, 2012
Yes, Al Gore's running mate. It isn't only me who counts it that way, that is how it is counted. He caucused with the Democrats in exchange to keep his seniority and status.
Following the election (2006), Lieberman struck a deal with Democratic leadership allowing him to keep his seniority and chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In return, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless he asked permission of Majority Whip Richard Durbin.[citation needed] He is free to vote as he pleases on policy matters.[citation needed] Along with Bernie Sanders, Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats gave them a 51–49 majority in the Senate, leaving a slim one Senator majority to control the Senate in the 110th Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_election
apokalyps2547Feb 4, 2012
Thank you for supporting my point (dugg). Lieberman votes on his own (not with Democrats) on policy matters, yet you're counting him as a Democrat on policy matters, either ignorantly or dishonestly.
drich255Feb 2, 2012
And who the independents caucus with is important. When President Bush was elected to his first term. The Senate was 50/50 with Cheney as the tie breaker. A few months later, Jim Jeffords declares himself an Independent and caucuses with the Democrats giving them control of the Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords#Departure_from_the_GOP
He could have declared himself an independent and continued to caucus with the GOP, but that wouldn't have shifted the balance of power. It still would have been 50/50.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
omgscienceFeb 1, 2012
"Obama has bent over backwards trying to appease the right wing."
That is exactly what the problem is... Obama has been the best GOP President since Reagan... TIme to show some balls or I know of a few votes he will not be getting.
dougchristianFeb 1, 2012
Look, a lot of people agree with this in general. But we're talking about division. Obama's style is to seek agreement and compromise, which often leads to conservative policies. That may be misguided. But it points out the dishonesty in claims of divisiveness.
You may think he caved too much to Republican policy, but what does it say about you that when those Republicans call him radical and divisive and try to take full power for themselves, you aren't there to back him up?
jpurdyFeb 1, 2012
Well said
markglFeb 1, 2012
NOT! What planet are you on?
xwhyFeb 1, 2012
Planet Hardline. Obama hasn't been a hardline Dem on the issues that he doesn't care about, so that makes him a moderate capitulator in their eyes.
gkiltzFeb 2, 2012
Lincoln- FAR MORE polarizing
Andrew Jackson.
There have been many
bluenose2Feb 1, 2012
The GOP's attitude towards Obama is: " bend over,we'll drive !"
miklkitFeb 1, 2012
The most polarizing President ever? That would be bush/cheney, followed by Nixon.
drich255Feb 2, 2012
Bush 43 signed lots of bipartisan bills. CFR (McCain/Feingold). Environment Light Bulb ban. No Child Left Behind (Kennedy). Both wars had support from Democrats. How was that polarizing?
Nixon also tried to appease the other side with things like the EPA.
It was President Obama that forced through gigantic health care reform without a single GOP vote. That is a very polarizing action.
And his speeches are polarizing (when he complains about the GOP or the very rich). In the SOTU, he spoke about the failures of Congress, but never recognized that his own party controls 1/2 of congress.
miklkitFeb 2, 2012
Bush/cheney was responsible for massive election fraud in 2000 and 2004.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usa_vote_facts.html?q=usa_vote_facts.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
The Democrats who voted on whether bush/cheney could use force were lied to and have said that if they knew the truth they would not have voted for it.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study?_s=PM:POLITICS
Buah/cheney outed a spy and people died. Did I mention that it was one of our own spies they outed?
Gitmo!
Torture!
The housing bubble!
These are not polarizing?
drich255Feb 2, 2012
The Bush elections were close, but that doesn't mean he was polarizing. It means the country was polarized between Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry.
If you think they lied about WMD, then I won't be changing your mind on that issue.
Richard Armitage outed a spy. Scooter Libby basically went to prison for it. Remind me on who died due to the leak.
President Obama isn't doing water boarding techniques, but Gitmo stands.
There are a lot of people to blame for the housing bubble, and by no means do they all belong in the GOP.
You could argue that he was polarizing, but I don't think he was the most polarizing. History shall judge.
rogue100Feb 1, 2012
Most polarizing president ever? Surely it must be the only president whose election actually precipitated a civil war. Hint, it's not Obama!
blinker1315Feb 1, 2012
No, that would be FDR.
DamnAirFreshFeb 1, 2012
That's a matter of opionion & you know how that goes.
chrismgtisFeb 2, 2012
LOLBama. His supporters are the most unintelligent people I've ever met.
limitgovFeb 1, 2012
Obama signed NDAA into law. For that reason alone, he is not fit to be president.
dougchristianFeb 1, 2012
Obama added a signing statement to the bill saying that in the view of the Executive branch the bill does not allow for the detention of US citizens and his Administration would not do such a thing. Besides, the 97% vote in congress is way more than veto proof.
Mitt Romney said he'd sign it too, but wouldn't add that statement. He said: "If you're an American and you join Al Qaeda, that's treason and you lose your rights."
I actually don't believe that you care about these kinds of issues or else you would see a difference here and it wouldn't be one that had you out campaigning against Obama.
limitgovFeb 1, 2012
"and his Administration would not do such a thing."
How gullible do you have to be to believe that?
Obama is not fit to be president. He supported the NDAA.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianFeb 2, 2012
That's not the point. The next President will be Obama or Romney. Those are their stances on this issue. One is better.
limitgovFeb 2, 2012
"The next President will be Obama or Romney."
Its not over yet. Neither of the two is fit, period. They support locking up people without a trial...without CHARGES even, FOREVER.
They are not only unfit, they are a disgrace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markglFeb 1, 2012
The fact you're trying to say he isn't just makes it that much worse.
publiclurkerFeb 2, 2012
Only because morally bankrupt tards like you get upset at hearing the truth.
grannysrightFeb 1, 2012
Barack Obama is the most devisive President and has never bent over backwards for anyone other than is money men. His speeches have always been inflammatory and definitely meant to divide this country. He has done nothing of value since being elected and it is time for him to go back to Chicago and play with the rest of the Chicago thug machine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 1, 2012
Nothing of value? Health care (although not as good as it should be), got us out of Iraq, and killed Bin Laden. Just a few that you may have forgotten.
He would have done more if the right did not do everything in their power to obstruct him.
treehugger87Feb 1, 2012
If I thought for a second that you really believed that I would call you insane. But of course nobody really believes that, it's just a talking point and you are the mouthpiece.
anomaly100Feb 1, 2012
Good on you Granny! You have those talking points memorized!
concusionFeb 1, 2012
copy-paste is her best friend
anomaly100Feb 2, 2012
Dammit. I thought she memorized them. She's no better than Sarah Palin reading off the palm of her sweaty hand.
grannysrightFeb 2, 2012
Talking points. Really? You talk to me about talking points. Give me a break. You and your little buddies here have your left wing progressive bs down pat and have no idea how nauseating it is to listen to from people who should know better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
publiclurkerFeb 2, 2012
And what's so inflammatory about his speeches? and try not to use the same old code words. We know exactly why you won't like having to listen to "one of them", we just like watching you make a fool out of yourself pretending we don't know the real reason.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 1, 2012
Oh I thought i would rely on Obama's actions and inability to find common ground. But now that I have this to tell me what I want to hear i'll just believe it instead of reality. /sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianFeb 1, 2012
What are the divisive actions? Do you think he hasn't looked for common ground? Could there be other reasons for the divided atmosphere?
And what does it even mean to believe in reality? How does the view of this article impede that? Most people of average intelligence or better have no problem reading many viewpoints and incorporating diverse information. If you can't do this, than thinking for yourself may actually not be a good way to go.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 2, 2012
I didn't say "divisive actions" you did. L2read before commenting on my ability to think for myself.
To answer your question, looking for common ground and making sacrifices to actually obtain it are 2 different things. Obama campaigned on bi-partisanship and being able to reach across the aisle. In reality he was unable to meet halfway most of the time and expected republicans to move far left of center to meet him.
As for reality, The Washington Post article was talking about a specific timeframe, a president's 3rd term. The above article is only seeking to draw attention away from a serious issue by using the played-out "but Bush was worse" argument.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianFeb 2, 2012
It takes two to tango on compromise, and it's laughable to suggest Obama hasn't made actual sacrifices in seeking it. Just look at how upset many of his supporters are at the number of times he's caved to Republican schemes. Nice to see though that it turns out you actually aren't thinking for yourself. As I say, it's not for everyone.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 2, 2012
Especially when people put words in my mouth :P I didn't say he "hasn't made actual sacrifices" I said "most of the time".
So because my views are different then you I somehow can't think for my self? Why is it that Obama supporters invariably resort to ad hominem in their arguments? I'm just trying to have an adult conversation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianFeb 2, 2012
You started from a lie (i.e. Obama's actions and inability to compromise have been polarizing) and an idiotic notion of having to choose between considering the perspective of an article and "believing in reality", and you have been denying the things you've said ever since. You somehow think the most compromising President in my lifetime is some kind of stubborn hard head. Hell, you've defended birthers on this site in the past 24 hours. None of this is about ideological differences on the proper role of government or anything else where honest differences of opinion can arise. I've never seen a productive conversation with the likes of you, so it's more fun to just make fun of you.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 2, 2012
You are a real piece of work. The king of logical fallacy. All you do is Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments. You say ive been denying the things ive said? Get it through your thick skull that the only things I have denied were things YOU said I said...only i never said them lol.
This whole time i've tried to have a civil conversation with you but you refuse to actually read carefully.
You call stating the fact that is it a requirement for all U.S. Presidents to be born in the U.S. (or have 2 parents who are U.S. citizens) "defending birthers"??? Sorry I will try not to offend you with facts anymore. Or was it the part about me liking the whole national security thing?
Look mr. doug, at first you seemed like someone who might be open to non-partisan debate, but it's now obvious to me that you are not here to exchange ideas but to bash and insult anyone with a different point of view. I have neither the time nor desire to trade insults or endless party-line rhetoric with you. So you go happily on your way and keep burying posts you don't like and insulting people and putting words in their mouth. For my part I'm going to go find an adult to talk to. Good dayComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianFeb 3, 2012
Do you really not understand what implications are? When you make that birth certificate argument in a discussion about birthers you are defending birthers. When you say Obama's actions contract a story about divisiveness you are saying his actions are divisive. No one's stupid enough to buy your parsing arguments. You don't seem that stupid either, so you're dishonest by default.
I'm very interested in non-partisan debate. Unfortunately you're a partisan. My only interest in you is ridicule.
kijo524Feb 1, 2012
Sad
KapsiotFeb 1, 2012
Obama Is Not The Most Polarizing President Ever - yes he is.
chassupFeb 1, 2012
He's the poverty pimp in chief.
caseycooldFeb 1, 2012
Oh you're so clever. Made that one up yourself? Your iron clad argument is chock-filled with clever points in important facts.
chassupFeb 1, 2012
It's true! He's a good little Alinskyite, divide and conquor. Read the book, you'll love it.
concusionFeb 1, 2012
and you're a retard, chASSup
chassupFeb 1, 2012
Takes one to know one, moron.
publiclurkerFeb 2, 2012
so, I take it you know the rest of the dig patriots then. you appear to be similarly brain damaged.
chassupFeb 2, 2012
sticks and stones... didn't your mother teach you anything?
treehugger87Feb 2, 2012
Bonus points for overt racism day at the Koch Internet propaganda center?