How the dem rhetoric has changed! Take a look at this dem party advertisement!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by phenomena, Aug 30, 2010.

  1. Still have the same race pandering/race baiting tactics though...

  2. You are a cautionary tale of a much-needed abortion gone horribly wrong.
  3. Ahhh, a personal insult because you don't like a factual reference. How very mature and "left wing" of you...

  4. Quote from Gabfly1:

    You are a cautionary tale of a much-needed abortion gone horribly wrong.

  5. Yeah, if I was you'd guys I guess I'd insult me too because let's face it, it's not like you have an actual rebuttal, so what else are you going to do??? LOL!!!
  6. They swapped heads after the civil rights act of 1964.:D
  7. 377OHMS


    lol. You seem to have run out of any ability to argue effectively and now just throw bombs. Funny. Half the fun of taking the country back is watching you folks break into oscillation.
  8. LOL!! Of cooourrrrse they did!!! ROFL!!!

  9. Hello


    Dems have been playing the same games since before they created the K.K.K. back then they were trying to seperate the racist whites from the blacks, and trick them into voting for them, because their ideas of bigger government never has and never will work.

    At some time over the years they realised there are less racists out there then black people, and started to figure it would be a better idea to manipulate the black vote then the racist vote.

    Dems have always been and always will be far more destructive to race relations then any racist ever could be, because a racist outs themselves, and is easy to spot as an asshole, where as a democrat tricks people into thinking they are looking out for their best interests while they continue to divide people along racial lines all in the name of more votes.

  10. This should make a wondeful add, how dems are all for education:

    Congresswoman redirected scholarships to relatives, aide’s children

    As if Democrats didn’t have enough troubles on the ethics front with two trials coming up in the House. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters have company after the Dallas Morning News reported that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson gave scholarships from a charitable fund to four relatives and the two children of her aide. The scholarships violated an anti-nepotism rule that keeps Congressional Black Caucus members from using such charitable funds as payoffs and featherbedding accounts:
    Oh, please. That doesn’t pass the smell test. Under what system would it ever be acceptable for someone to award scholarship funds from charitable accounts to their own family members? Common sense would tell most people that a line had been crossed, even if it wasn’t explicitly spelled out under the CBC’s own rules — which it was.

    Johnson claims she didn’t “personally benefit,” but her family certainly did. So too did the family of her district director, Rod Givens, whose two children got money from the fund. That at least gives the appearance that Johnson used the CBC charity money to pay Givens outside of his normal salary and benefits structure, which is publicly disclosed.

    It’s for this precise scenario that most charitable organizations use independent boards to select recipients for outlays. Instead of putting the individual Representative in the role of paymaster, a smarter and less fraught method would be for the CBC to handle these applications in an aggregate manner and then have an independent panel make the final decisions, even while Representatives nominate constituents for the awards. Why don’t they do that? Because the entire purpose of the scholarships is to make the individual Representatives get the credit for giving the money to the students, so they can get their names in the paper and keep getting re-elected.

    Johnson may get re-elected anyway, but it’s clear that she represents the swamp that needs draining, and soon.
    #10     Aug 30, 2010