TheRoot.com - the most racist Web site and Internet magazine in existence today.

I've never come across a more myopic, one-sided publication that spews as much anti-White rhetoric in my life. This Web site not only shunts all of the Black culture's failings onto White people, but it justifies media portrayals of the failure of minorities not due to their shortcomings, laziness or genetic predisposition toward disingenuity but rather due to White's failure to give them more handouts or make more excuses for them or the government failing to make life easier for them. By encouraging multiculturalism, which is just a way to hold the collective European-derived culture's head in the guillotine with the blade named "racism" perpetually hovering overhead, liberals and their cohorts - members of less productive cultures - manipulate White guilt into a way to neuter us into inactivity or speaking back against it, so that these minorities can further their own agenda, use more of America's resources and money and change policy to reward themselves and penalize the founders of the country.

In any case, The Root's "journalists" tried, a couple of months ago, to claim that the economic collapse due to the subprime mortgage industry's bust had nothing to do with Blacks or Latinos, and that insinuating otherwise is an example of cold-blooded racism. Let's see: pretty much every economist, literate person, and me all agree that yes, it was minorities' fault. I mean, why would the media want people to knwo the truth when reporters forge their careers feeding people certain facts to better gain control of the masses for the politicians who have them in their pockets (cough, Obama, cough)?

It's 3 a.m. and I'm high on tryptophan. I'm crashing, so maybe tomorrow or the next day I will find the actual statistics for the number of minorities who received subprime mortgages compared to the amount of defaults. In the meantime, google "race statistics for subprime mortgages." The results are telling and chilling. The overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages are a result of Clinton's minority-homeownership, no-criteria-needed home loans, further aggravated by Bush in his attempt to court minority votes for Republicans.

Now, the media, the NAACP and every other liberal organization (again, the media) is covertly accepting the blame through distraction and misdirection through turn-around. "Yes, maybe it is minorities fault by taking out mortgages with adjustable rates they wouldn't be able to afford, but it was the evil lenders' fault for pushing it on them. They didn't understand the terms." Well, learn to fucking read english and maybe you would.

Eric McKinley and the Frivolous Lawsuit

Do you want to know why people call us "nellies"? It's because some of us choose to act like whiny bitches. Especially if you're a middle aged douchebag homo named Eric McKinley.

I don't know why Mr. McKinley looks like, nor should it matter...yet whenever I read about the EHarmony lawsuit, reading about this Eric McKinley, I can't help but imagine in my mind's eye some beady-eyed, frumpy, overweight balding homo who never got picked at the Bathhouse and had to waddle home alone with nothing but his crystal meth-induced illusions of self-worth and validation, causing him to begrudge heterosexual society, free of its image-conscious male oriented pressures. Never exceeding at the superficial, but never really having accomplished much in the way of anything else, and reduced to finding love on the Internet, Mr. McKinley (in my fantasy) sadly scours, and fails at finding love, at gay.com, then manhunt.net, then finally adam4adam.com, until he hears an EHarmony commercial softly playing from the television in the background as he sits in his computer chair in his white briefs with nothing but the computer screen illuminating the darkened room. On a whim, he tries it, but to his dismay realizes there are no gays on it. Knowing the ones on the other sites are out of his league, and this insult being the straw that broke the camel's back, McKinley acts out of rage, which is so typical of the gay community as of late (thanks Prop 8). From the West Coast to the East Coast, their self proclaimed liberal values have given way to bouts of infantile rage.

Anyways: Neil Warren founded EHarmony based on his experience as a doctorate-level educated professional with a career-spanning dedicated to studying heterosexual interaction. He founded EHarmony to foster the values and ideals of Christian marriage. Admittedly, he has said in the past, the main reason he doesn't have a section for homosexual compatibility is that he doesn't know enough about gay relationships. Is that a crime? I wouldn't be surprised if most gay people didn't know what a football was, but the NFL isn't penalizing them. This is a case of a frivolous, rage-mandated lawsuit at its best, or should I say, worst. Even if Warren had a burning hatred of homosexuals and wanted to found a solely, exclusive group for heterosexuals, we are in America - that should be his right and his prerogative. Now EHarmony has been forced to start a gay-inclusive matchmaking service. I doubt this will increase the odds of Mr. McKinley finding a partner.

I do want to discuss some of the disgusting ramifications of this lawsuit. This is imposing on freedom, fundamentally. There is such a terrifying move to socializing everything in America. What's next? An abortion clinic being sued for not performing vasectomies? Suing Chick Fil A for not serving veal? Suing the NBA for not allowing golfers to participate? The great thing about America is we have the freedom to express ourselves by the differences that bring us together. Yes: some people choose to embrace the things that set them apart, make them unique, and seek others like them. This is as annoying as women who demand inclusion to men's clubs. God forbid a White person demand to join the NAACP. Once we stamp out organizations that promote our individuality, we will all become the same, despite the fact we are not. Hegemony for all. Thanks McKinley. If it's so hard for you to meet somebody, maybe it's you, not EHarmony.

Prop 8 and the Hypocrisy of Homos

It has dawned on me that as I run a blog for gay Republicans, I should probably address some topics that pertain to homosexuality. The first is slightly more serious, and by serious I mean not a ridiculous frivolous lawsuit by a fat, bitter middle aged homo.

A letter to the embittered grotesquerie that is California's homosexual population:

Homos: you lost. Deal with it. The way you are all handling your loss is completely irrational. Typical of a liberal. Let me talk to you about some of the signs I saw when I went by the Daley Center's November 15th Prop 8 Protest.

"Equal rights for equal people!"
"You can't deny our rights!"
"We don't tell you who can get married!"

Sorry girls. You already have equal rights. Just go read a little thing about civil rights. Even the most right-winged Republican understand, respects and is willing to cede you your civil right to be joined in a union with all the same rights and privileges of a heterosexual marriage with the partner of your choice. You are receiving equal rights. Marriage is a term steeped with religious connotation. In nearly almost every culture that ever was or is, marriage has been and is understood (and thanks to Prop 8, forever will be understood) as a union between a man and a woman before the eyes of God. I am against archaic interpretations of the Bible, but I think the writing's on the wall with this - it was pretty clearly spelled out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, largely with the intent to reproduce. I won't go into the varied sociopolitical benefits underlying the historic value of marriage, such as family alliances and ensuring paternity, because I think that's tangential.

Secondly, nobody is taking away any of your rights. A rogue Supreme court overturned a constitutional amendment 7 months ago, if that. Those justices didn't reflect the will of the people. I know there is this big clamor that the margin was so small, with a difference in pro/con votes something like 3 or 4%, but you can't blame the Mormons, or the Catholics, or the Blacks or the Hispanics or people who donated money to the campaign to pass Prop 8. If you really think advertisements have the power to challenge and change people's core beliefs, you are naive as...well as a liberal. This wasn't "do you want the courthouse's wallpaper to be pink or red." This was a matter of protecting conservative values...and I know it must have been earth-shattering for your conceptions of an ultra-liberal California and the inherent "enlightenment" of its denizens to be completely refuted, but this is something a lot of people take seriously. Don't punish them for having their beliefs. It's totally, completely and 100% against what you preach in your politics, to be inclusive and respective of everyone's opinion. Hell, your party has gone so far as to enforce things like affirmative action and special interest group legislation because you are "so tolerant" and think "everybody has a chance." I guess you're only for equality when it results in you being more equal than everybody else.

The saddest part of this, is their demand for unequal equality has caused the Director of an L.A. Film Festival, Richard Raddon, some of HIS rights. The irritated and upset homos accessed public donation records, and now, not only are they boycotting and threatening businesses (a genius move in a collapsing economy), but they demanded the resignation of Richard Raddon. Michelle Malkin has a great piece on the story right here. The barrage of protests and threats his parent organization, Film Independent (FIND), has received in the wake of the Prop 8 decision, Raddon has been coerced into tending a resignation. Does denying a man his livelihood, and forcing him to stop contributing to a field he is talented and passionate about, a devotion that has undoubtedly brought about enriching, untold creative productivity, make any sense, because you're bitter? Your rights AREN'T BEING infringed upon. You can have unions. The unions = the same rights as marriage. Everybody will treat you as if you are married. They already do. Nobody took anything away from you, but you respond by taking away from a talented visionary. This is so typical to me of the liberal agenda - stifling the productive members of society if they exercise THEIR rights - RIGHT to an opinion, RIGHT to believe in whatever they want. Liberals will clamor to give international terrorists more rights by calling for their release from Gitmo, especially that fat vag Rosie, but they don't condone an American's exercising of his freedom of thought. Bravo, two-faces. P.S. you're really starting to prove you aren't even responsible enough to handle adult affairs like marriage anyways...the Prop 8 outcome was obviously for the best.

I love all the clips of gays bashing Blacks and Hispanics in the aftermath of having JUST VOTED FOR A CANDIDATE WHOSE CENTRAL MESSAGE WAS UNIFICATION. The Republicans are learning that we as a party have to put aside arbitrary differences to unify on grounds of our common values, which are more powerful than the things that divide us. I suggest you do the same. You can't make everybody happy all of the time. You still have your civil unions; nobody would dare ever try to take that away from you. That isn't the logical "next step" after they "took gay marriage away" from you. You never really legally had it in the first place. The people have spoken, and they said the rights you have are enough. After all, it's the same rights they have. Everybody will treat you the same as if you were "married." The law recognizes you the same as if you were "married." And, MOST importantly, you love each other as you would if you were "married." Unfortunately, the word itself means "a union between a man and a woman." That is solidified by the Bible. For all intensive purposes, the Bible is God's word. We are one nation under God. Sorry, but God wins. If you're so steamed about not having your own word for it, call it Garriage. I doubt anybody will stop you.

Round and round they go; where the issues stop, only the centrists know

Amaaaaazing how Obama and the media is already covering his tracks before he even starts making mistakes. Note that I no longer differentiate the media from the liberal media, as it's pretty obvious the two bear no differences.

Obama infused millions with his "hope," "change," and "new day" rhetoric. Then, he gets into office and what do you know? He's magically a centrist. If all "change I could believe in" encompassed was simply changing the scene back to 1992-2000, I may have believed in it! Obama's cabinet, transitional office and staff appointments are not the new, unseen faces he promised his constituency, but rather a rehash of the Clinton White House. How LBJ in the wake of Kennedy is he? Populating his offices with very well known Washington insiders, many of whom are doing the same job they had last decade.

Before I get too into this, I want to bring to light the fact that Obama is smart in a way - too often in the past, we always heard a politician promise something and renege. "Mark my words, no new taxes!" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "I will repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Bam bam bam, none came to pass. This time, he with his cronies, the media, are burning the midnight oil to make sure we know in advance he's probably going to be forced to renege on his promises and accept what he is classifying as irredeemable failures...however, he is luckily on the coattails of an outgoing administration with a 20% approval rating to use more than conveniently as a scapegoat.

Today we hear that the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. That doesn't bode well for the Welfare Whore who chillingly predicted she would no longer have to worry about paying her mortgage or for gasoline. P.S., to the liberals who defend this awful crackslut, no, I doubt that what she is trying to imply is that with Obama as president, she won't have to worry about not having the opportunities to be able to earn the money for these expenses, or she wouldn't have the little "if I help him out he'll help me" (so typical of their mentality) addendum. We also hear tales of the media saying "the problems facing Obama are so insurmountable, we can't hold him accountable if he fails." Well, he IS the Messiah. He's a miracle worker. He's of a higher plane, says Oprah and Chris Matthews. His path to the White House is of a "divine origin," therefore: we should be able to expect miracles. He promised change. Let's see some!

Now I will segue back into my second paragraph, about Obama's side-stepping politics. His shameless abandonment of the far left, the people that put him in office (well, along with the help of the idiots seen in the video here ) is not even being greeted with the fury it should be met with, at least not by as many people as it should be. Many far-leftists are furious. Even a few people at the Obama-can-do-no-wrong Daily KOS and that batshit crazy Huffington are crying foul. They feel alienated and used as mere props and puppets to get the extra millions of votes Obama needed, and rightly so. The second he got in, he laid down like a dog for Hillary and the established Democratic royalty. However, leave it up to the retarded, idealistic youth to help Obama gloss over his blatant and flagrant treason to his core constituency(I never once thought I would ever use the NYTimes to SUPPORT one of my points):

“We’re frustrated by it, but we understand,” said Mollie Ruskin, 22, who grew up in Baltimore and is spending the summer here as a fellow with Politicorps, a program run by the Bus Project, a local nonprofit that trains young people to campaign for progressive candidates. “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.”

Nate Gulley, 23, who grew up in Cleveland and is also here as a Politicorps fellow, said too much was being made of Mr. Obama’s every move.

“It’s important not to get swept up in ‘Is Obama posturing?’ ” Mr. Gulley said. “It’s self-evident that he’s a different kind of candidate.”

Um yes Nate, it IS important to get swept up in it. He isn't a different kind of candidate. Your yellow-bellied candidate has proven himself to be just like every cuckold run of the mill politician. You voted for "change you could believe in." Your savior reneged on his promise to you. You are one of the reasons this potentially VERY DANGEROUS man holds the highest position in the land. Now you're sitting by, not with outrage but with neutered apathy and blind indifference. You're being naive, and hypocritical. He lied to you. Instead of realizing this, you're just saying "oh he had to do it, it's okay." What else? Once a liar, always a liar. When do you think it's going to stop? He abandoned you like a 16 year old Kansas boy would leave his pregnant inamorata at a Route 66 Wal-Mart parking lot. You're already making excuses for him.

To conclude, you can't make excuses for Obama so that he can never make a mistake. This isn't the CTA or Mayor Daley legislation. We've already seen plenty of mistakes. The media and Obama himself can't keep up this "oh well, even if I fail it's okay. If I lie, it's okay." It wasn't okay when Bush changed his mind. You can't enforce a double standard. Obama must be, and is going to be held accountable for all of his shortcomings, lies, hyperbole and bait-and-switching. There is one thing we should all be able to agree on. Whether you believe Obama's spectrum shifting is a result of being pragmatic and view it as necessary, or if you feel embittered and alienated by this two-face, one thing is for sure: Obama isn't the miracle-working Messiah you all thought he was. Period.

More misconceptions from the Left

As I have discussed in many posts, the Left likes to claim that Bush favored the wealthy; that rich people get all the tax breaks, that Obama is great because he's finally going to give the trash with self-entitlement issues, I mean, the lower classes their own tax breaks. Let's look at some statistics compiled in 2004-2005, arguable the apex of Bush's presidential tenure, a time when allegedly rich people weren't paying any taxes.


"Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

by Scott A. Hodge


Fiscal Fact No. 27

One of the biggest obstacles facing President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform is the fact that America has become divided between a growing class of people who pay no income taxes and a shrinking class of people who are bearing the lion’s share of the burden.

Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers. Tax Foundation economists estimate that for tax year 2004, a record 42.5 million Americans who filed a tax return (one-third of the 131 million returns filed last year) had no tax liability after they took advantage of their credits and deductions. Millions more paid next to nothing. "

"Conclusion
In 2004, a record 42.5 million tax returns – one-third of all returns filed – had no income tax liability because of the available credits and deductions in the tax code. This is a 42 percent increase in the number of zero-tax filers in just four years. In addition to these zero-tax filers are the 15 million individuals or households who do not earn enough to file a tax return. Overall, nearly 58 million taxable households are outside of the income tax system.

These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system. Are any future tax cuts, or even tax reforms, possible when the lion’s share of the tax burden is increasingly borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers who – at least on paper – appear to be "upper-income"? And will the expanding pool of non-payers demand even higher income taxes? These are questions lawmakers must begin to debate."

Wow. They were scared of this in 2004-2005. Now we have some idealogical socialist catering to the basest and most banal desires of the lowest common denominator who wants to shunt even MORE of the already ridiculous burden on to a fraction of the population who not only shouldn't be, but soon aren't going to be physically able to carry the burden. Why should the most successful people be ordained to carry the dead weight of everybody else? Society should reward them for their contributions, not ask for more out of them.

Oh - and um, I know that nobody is allowed to quote racial statistics anymore because on Nov 4th, racism "died," but choke on this:

"Race and Ethnicity

When we combine the populations of non-payers and non-filers and look to see what overall percentage of each group is not paying taxes, we find that: 50.7 percent of African American households pay no income taxes, 35.5 percent of Asian American households do not, 37.6 percent of White American households do not, and roughly 52 percent of Hispanics pay no income taxes."

Let's overlap with Obama's voters:

41% Whites voted for Obama
96% Blacks voted for Obama
66% Latinos voted for Obama

Wow...amazing to see that Obama's largest constituency were people who don't pay income tax. Shocking anyone? Shocking that people who leech off the teat of taxpayers for everything from their cigarettes to their baby formula voted overwhelmingly for a man who promised more free money?

Bye American work ethic. Maybe by 2012 the percentage of people who don't pay income taxes will increase from 31% (a historic high)today to 50% as people realize they are working when they don't have to.

Did you hear the one about the gay guy who beat, raped and killed his straight 23 year old intern? Me neither! Nobody has.

A crime of the same atrocity and magnitude of the Matthew Shepherd tragedy...but nobody will ever hear about it. This is just another example of the liberal media bias. When Republican conservative Iowans were rebuilding their flood-ravaged cities this summer, the liberal media didn't deign to show their plight. They were too busy getting ready to focus on the next batch of Gulf trash whine, moan and bitch their gospel of self-entitlement the next time a hurricane came visiting. Why would they want to show that some people are totally capable of rebuilding their cities without help from FEMA and hundreds of millions of dollars of support? That would totally undermine the claims that FEMA's response was too slowly, and force people to consider that maybe, just maybe, the trash of New Orleans was - *drumroll please* maybe just lazy.

That's neither here nor there. The focus of this story is 23 year old, ironically named Jason Shephard, who, in 2006, was drugged, raped and murdered by 43 year old gay coworker William Smithson. Shephard, a straight, "nice Republican boy" from South Dakota who "liked to talk about his faith" had come to Delaware county, Maryland to intern at the East coast branch of his company. After turning down the advances of Smithson, who was known to have GHB (a date rape drug) and meth-fueled parties with the other homosexuals of the town at his residence, he was found 3 days after one such party wrapped in a series of sheets in Smithson's basement. The case just went to trial in Delaware county, where it has been pending this week.

I'm not going to get into the sordid details of this case. I'll post a link for you to find the story itself, since um, it's basically being completely glossed over by all media outlets except the paper in the small town the crime occurred, and a few other small regional papers. My question is: why? When this happened in reverse, i.e. a republican male beating and killing a gay democrat, America was forced to confront the horrible evils that result from small-town, close-minded conservative values. However, when a gay man brutally beats and murders a small-town religious conservative, the media just says "um, we're passing on this one." You know, maybe this will cause you to think twice and re-evaluate how badly you want your Fairness Doctrine reinstated. You might just have to start reporting both sides of the story.

The story:
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2008/11/18/news/doc49223c58bcebe327506584.txt

Difference between Republicans and Democrats?

Rational thinking.
Using the scientific method.
Class.

This is lifted from a regional newspaper called The Naperville Sun. It serves as a perfect example of how the liberal media pigeonholes any, and I mean ANY right-wing dissent with Obama as racism, as if there can be no rational, logical or political reasons a person might disagree with his policies.

Covert racism? Please translate...
By
Patrick Ferrell
on November 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

You know how forwarded e-mails work. There are hundreds of names piled on tops of hundreds more, with dozens of e-mail signatures, and occasionally a message from one friend to another.

Of course, you never know any of these people, except for the one who sent it to you. But, still, if you're like me, you find it interesting to read their very often ignorant and off-base comments.

This one, again from somebody I don't know, was at the bottom of the e-mail in which the Barack Obama-referenced photo of the week was attached:

If I remember correctly this man got 51% of the vote and for the life of me I canʼt find anyone who will admit to voting for him. I wonder if he would have gotten elected if you had to vote verbally while on national television?

So what, exactly, does this dude mean? Is this some thinly veiled racism? Or is the comment just too shallow (or could my mind just be too feeble) to pick up on the greater point?

-------------------------------------------------------------

No Patrick Ferrell. No, for as much as Obama's campaign paid the Naperville Sun (owned by the Chicago Sun-Times, a publication whose liberalism is rivaled only by the NYT) to espouse that any anti-Obama sentiment is caused by racism, there is a multitude of other reasons that this individual might not like Obama. I'll go over a theory I have why this man said what he did.

I think that most people can't admit to voting for Obama because maybe, upon retrospection, they realized they were driven solely by emotional reasons to vote for a person that ultimately, they knew nothing about whatsoever. Maybe they were having the conversation with a learned or politically knowledgeable person who explained that Obama wants to raise taxes for only the upper middle class, maybe they explained he favors granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, maybe they explained Obama wants to create a civilian standing army, maybe they explained Obama really doesn't have much proven executive experience, and that this is the first true election he ever even actually won, maybe they explained how Obama dishonorably had all of his opposition, including his mentor, disqualified from the 1996 senate ballot, maybe they explained how Obama is the only president-elect arrogant and conceited enough to create his own Seal of the Office of President-Elect, maybe they explained that Obama has no American pride, maybe they explained that Obama was a proven member of the New Party, the socialist branch of the Democrats in the 90s, maybe they explained how for any time in our economic history, raising taxes have ALWAYS either caused a recession or drastically exacerbated existing ones whereas tax breaks have always stimulated the economy, maybe they explained that Obama's policy to grant more economic stimulus packages and increase infrastructure spending were the exact approaches adopted by FDR during the Great Depression which dramatically prolonged the impact and duration of the Great Depression rather than ameliorate it.
Maybe, since any liberal you pose the question "why did you vote for Obama," 9 times out of 10 you hear back "Why wouldn't you!?" or "Bush is an asshole!" or "You want more of McSame?? you're stupid!" or "He's a wonderful man" or "he gives great speeches." Yeah...um...that basically makes him a motivational speaker, not THE PRESIDENT. Way to go. You don't vote for the leader of the free world because he's charismatic. You vote the 8th grade student council president in for being charismatic. P.S. - Know who else got a big majority of the vote through charisma? JFK. Oh, yeah, and Hitler. Thanks Bay of Pigs, thanks World War II. I'm not saying Obama is the next Hitler - so don't use the opportunity to fucking call me a racist or say I am equating the two. What I am saying is history doesn't lie, and perhaps, just maybe, a few people now realize they were a little brainwashed or taken in by his personality and failed to evaluate him on his skills and qualifications, or lack thereof. Don't counter me with some Sarah Palin-is-stupid argument either - they weren't running for the same office, and no, she isn't. It's not being racist to argue that the majority of Obama's supporters know too little, or in some cases, nothing at all, about what he actually stands for. It isn't racist to argue that a substantial percentage of Obama's supporters lack a thorough understanding of American economic and political history, and it isn't racist to imply maybe they voted for him based on a trifecta of factors that have nothing to do with Obama's stance on the issues: the fact they hated Bush, couldn't or wouldn't consider the fact that our current economic woes are not automatically and by default caused by the incumbent party, and lastly, communally adopted a mob mentality and went with the guy with the reassuring smile. Sorry Patrick Ferrell. Enjoy Will county by the way.

This brings me to the question posed in my topic line. Conservatives are often labeled by liberals as hate-mongering idiots. Liberals love accusing conservatives of being old-fashioned, illogical, dumb, racist or any other a wide gamut of insults. This skews ironic as their party mentality is self-styled on premises of tolerance, acceptance and rationality. So far in this election, based on anecdotal evidence, blog comments, liberal media articles or video footage of the rallies, liberals are the angry ones, liberals are the ones screaming for Bush to be tried on war crimes, liberals are the ones calling conservatives hate-mongering anti-Americans. Liberals are the ones taking cheap shots at Sarah Palin for being from Alaska and speaking with a drawl, or John McCain being "old" or Bush being some Southern idiot. You know, um, that's more racist than any of the insults ever leveraged against Obama. Conservatives have NEVER made a character assault on Obama, insulted him or made an issue of his race. In spite of this, liberals started and never let up on the offensive, without any provocation whatsoever. Conservatives often have logical, historically-backed and factual arguments about why Obama is not the best answer for president, none of which ever insult his intelligence, heritage or race. Liberals respond not with a retort or counter argument, but by attacking the questioner, attacking Republicans, lambasting with character assaults, questioning intelligence, patriotism and intelligence, and fall back solely on high-powered emotional rants that lead to the invariable and inevitable conclusion that you are a racist for even asking, every time, without fail. I have yet to hear a liberal defend Obama's policies with a response framed by a logical argument, or by even answering the question. The most logical thing I have heard to date is "it can't be any worse than what we have now." That's the BEST they've come up with. What I have heard, ad nauseum, is a lot of Obama-worship, overzealous praise, swooning and fainting from exuberance, and a look of irrational rage and readiness to crucify anyone who dares question their dogmatic beliefs. They are the hate mongers, they are traitors to their party, they are intolerant, they are the ones who defend Obama not with reason but with daft propaganda-ridden vagueries like "yes we can," and "change we can believe in," writing off anyone who disagrees with his politics, not even him as a person, as racist. Conservatives were quick to congratulate Obama on his victory and be gracious in defeat, yet liberals are still quick to gloat, even when they don't know a thing about the person they put into office. 82% of Obama voters answered incorrectly when polled on Obama's political leanings, and instead of being concerned and maybe scared, they instead resorted to accusing the pollster of being, imagine this, a racist for even having the audacity to ask in the first place. Liberal teachers are looking the other way and allowing their students to eviscerate conservative students; liberal colleges are forbidding conservative guest speakers or professors to question Obama's competency and qualifications....and here of all places, the "land of the free," where you are guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. You're free all right...free to agree with the mob. If not, you're free to be ostracized.