[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bojangles your political opinions are about as substantial as the Taco Bell fart I just unleashed.

Typical liberal hypocrisy. You castigate me for not being substantial enough... in a post with 1 sentence. Care to elaborate on your arguments and counter-arguments in a substantial way? Please note: "TL;DR" is not considered 'substantial' for this purpose.

Originally Posted by Murphy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You'll only hear the word "liberals" out of the mouth of a white man

Do you say this because you think blacks pronounce it "libral"? Or are you saying that blacks aren't educated enough to know about the names for either end of the political spectrum, whose terms are often used as a simplified way of... Wait, I really don't get what you are saying. Please explain, preferably in a 'substantial' way to keep Purist happy. Also, why do you think white women would not use the word liberal?

Btw, did you put any thought whatsoever into what you just wrote? Because it can easily be disproven by even the most rudimentary of google searches, not to mention practical experience. You do talk to people who are not white males, right?

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

#1) King of England

#2) George Washington

hmm

Your historical knowledge of this country is about equal to your knowledge of politics.

GW and the colonists did not advocate the marginalization of the forces of law and order. GW et al did not advocate hating and distrusting people who had served their country in the military. GW et al did advocate a new way for a people and their government to relate to each other.

If the dems were simply doing this, then fine. Let the voters decide. But that is not what this debate is about. It is about 1 group of people who hate the forces of law and order simply because those forces tend to be associated with a 2nd group.