Are you feeling OK? Your side has Hilary and Bernie.

The other side has Cruz, Rubio, Ben Carson.

Which side is whiter?

I await your honest, thoughtful reply. Good lord.

Maybe he heard her pandering to blacks by switching to a jive dialect at one of her speeches and, assuming no one could be that condescending, he assumed she really is black.

I think we traded for Micheal Jackson and gave them a "Player to be Named Later"........so we are in the process of completing the trade. Hillary is "Dat Playah"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ha..ha..ha...stupid MSNBC talking heads...when things don't go the way you planned



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nolb...ature=youtu.be

Obamacare...here's a shocker

http://freebeacon.com/issues/officia...-on-the-brink/

Looking forward to casting my vote for Bernie today 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:shocked:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of you genius' are gonna crap your pants when Trump is your leader. I support him all the way.

I'm not a rascist, I am a realist. This country is REALLY effed up, time to shake it up!

Love that you more intelligent folks, can tell exactly who is supporting Trump.

Guess I'm just a dumbass, uneducated, rascist. Too bad, I thought I was pretty ok. I'll take your word for it guys, you are smart, I am stupid. BUT my team is going to win, and yours is Shrillery the ENABLER.

Maybe the Shrill, is really the stupid one out of all of us. 1. Bill 2. Benghazi 3. Bill 4. emails 5. these suits she is wearing have to go. 6. she is a wall street suck up. with zero true business experience.

And lastly, she is the leader of the politically correct wave. They spend more time worrying about bullies than they do about defeating our enemies.

Trump is going to crush her in the general, woo hoo

Interesting to hear The statistics for Massachusetts this morning . The Democrat party lost 30,000 last year. 1/3 of those reenrolled as Republicans .
I love how the left throws out the word "uneducated " , as if it's some indicator of smarts. Ironically these are the same people complaining that they are crushed by student loans , that they can't afford to repay . Education they couldn't afford was only there first mistake in life .
I prefer to surround myself with people with common sense and open minds
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's my anti Hillary vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think when Dennis wrote "uninformed and uneducated voters", he meant they didn't go to school or weren't intelligent, I think he meant they weren't necessarily politically astute or don't spend/invest considerable time into the political process which is why so many can't make up their minds each election cycle between two candidates with polar opposite views...but we still hear demands that they all get out and vote don't we?:bl:

like Dennis I'm thoroughly enjoying this go round....I don't like Trump but he's as close as you can get to actually waterboarding a leftist or a Republican establishment type and the MSM... which is endlessly amusing

Paul, earlier i asked you this question...other than public perception, what evidence is there, that democrats care any more about blacks, than republicans? I didn't see a response.

Paul, when I see what has happened here in CT, to places like Bridgeport and Hartford, controlled by Democrats for a generation, it makes me sick. I look at these failing cities, and I feel that (1) these people deserve better, and (2) whatever the leaders are doing, it clearly isn't working, so let's try something else, anything else.

Please tell me, how that makes me racist.

I think I can make a compelling case that for ANY Dempocratic leader of these cities to say with a straight face "elect me, because I am doing a good job representing you, and what you deserve, is more of the same"...I can make a case THAT is the person who obviously doesn't care about these people.

You cannot make that wrong. You just can't. And that's the agony and irony in all of this...it's what the Tea Party endorses, which is what blacks need to embrace to not just survive, but to start climbinbg th economic ladder. It worked when Bill Clinton did it.

Obama is the personification of the notion that there's a big difference between being educated and being smart. "I can add millions of uninsured to the health insurance rolls, and cover more things, and remove lifetime caps on insurance benefits, and that will lower costs by $2,500 per family".

Genius.

Oh lookie, a political scientist studied this issue...

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh...713003733a.pdf

Your link doesn't work either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for the Trump lovers among us .. and others you should see this clip very funny from John Oliver .. this is not news but it is factual

its the Actual things trump has said and done in the clip that should alarm the Trump Faithful ..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

my proud communist friend was very confident that Trump would be the next President, and he's never wrong...just ask him ;)

oh good...is this the new snarky comedian that leftist will roll out to make all of their "points"? :rotf3:

this is not news but it is factual....love that...


hey Spence....that's all been taken out of context ...right???

I think you need to go back and see who threw out the word uneducated (and uninformed).

Oh, that restored my belief in a benign God!

Of course, she had to say "of course, a majority of trump's supporters are not African Americans".

I have news for that MENSA candidate...neither are a majority of Barack Obama's supporters.

When you cannot win the debate on the merits of your ideas (and liberals rarely can), ALWAYS resort to the race card. Always.

High five!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your link doesn't work. Can you give me the cliffs notes version?

In a related story, The Narrative was rushed to the hospital via LifeStar helicopter, but was pronounced dead on arrival.

For a minute I thought this might have been hosted on Hillarys server and she deleted it by mistake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try this one...

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh...c3e7a9ef680b41

I saw notihng in there that explains why blacks in places in Hartford and Bridgeport, are better off under Democratic leadership, than they would be under Republican leadership.

Sorry Spence. You can't measure what doesn't exist, and no data exists to tell us whether or not the people of Hartford would be better off if the Tea Party was running the show. There is overwhelming empirical evidence to show that after 40 yeras of Democrat rule, they are far worse off. It's possible that conservatives would have done even worse, but we can't know. Because pepole like you cannot say out loud, that what we have been doing, has been a disaster. And somehow, you think that means you care more about them than I do.

Have fun with that.

This article, claiming to be an objective, empirical, study is basically a selective statistical apologetic for what you might call "old news." It is an attempt to validate government hegemony above individual effort. There is no evaluation of cultural differences and their impact; no weight given to economic disparity within minority groups and the individual efforts therein creating the intra-group income inequality as well as the unequal status and health due to individual differences therein.

It is a "study" that promotes egalitarian group think. That is evident toward the beginning when it states that "The Republican Party’s efforts to end slavery under Abraham Lincoln are the most obvious example of one party favoring a more racially egalitarian agenda than the other party." That is a subtle twist which casts Lincoln's abolishment of slavery as something it was not. It was not about egalitarianism. It was about liberty. Abe did not think blacks were "equal" to whites in an egalitarian sense, but that they should be so before the law.

And it is a testimonial for a "democracy" which is propped up by the Progressive version of an Administrative State. It gives lip service to Congress and the Courts, but lays the power of guiding the state almost exclusively in the hands of the chief administrator, the President. It rightly avoids our idea of a Constitutional Republic, because that obviously is not about the equality of groups, rather it is about unalienable rights of individuals. He says "We focus on the President because that office stands at the top of American Democracy." He claims that " The extent of Presidential power is an open question. . . There is a long-standing debate about the relative influence of Congress and the President." He claims a long-standing debate and bows to a hierarchy neither of which exist in our Constitution.

And the President he says, importantly for his thesis, is the head of a Political Party. He curiously says "The political parties created democracy." And that parties serve interests. This is the very factionalism that the Founders warned against and whose influence Madison said would be nullified because their large number and diversity would work against each other. But the two party system changes that as it subsumes the diverse factions and creates the binary factional war that could, as the Founders warned, destroy the Republic.

He attributes the closing of gaps between groups to Party policies. He says "Because the kinds of redistributional efforts (e.g.) taxing and spending tend to fluctuate extensively from administration to administration, they are, in our opinion, among the most logical sources of minority gains and losses across different administrations." That is, it is government redistributive policies, not cultural nor even individual differences within and between groups that determine the well-being of "groups." That is, dependence on government is the key to success. And the right President, the right Administration, will provide that for us.

The author says, "The more we can do to link minority outcomes to specific policy measures, the more we will be able to help disadvantaged minorities. In an age of growing inequality and sharp racial divisions in the vote, it is imperative that we use our research capacities 'to scrutinize the health of our democracy' and to look for avenues to restore its vitality"

It is amazing that our "democracy" has lost its vitality in spite of all the past policy measures. Maybe it is a because of them?

The article ends "If voters cannot tell whom government has helped and whom it has hurt, they will not know which party to reward and which to punish. . . . By assessing the relative gains and losses of different groups under competing regimes, scholars can contribute substantially to a healthy democracy."

It is the "competing regimes" and the scholars who assess them, that we (as "groups") must depend on--for a healthy democracy. But if a democracy is rule by majority, isn't it the perspective of that majority that determines what is healthy? And isn't that the rub in democracy? The majority determines who to reward and who to punish. If Latinos, as projected, become the majority, will they try to equalize the gaps, or use their power for advantage? Isn't individual liberty a better goal than group egalitarianism?

Trump being elected Emperor of the Galactic Empire is worth it for that little quote. Can I steal that?

It is OK - if you are a Democrat you can vote more than once.

he's a great argument against the left's and some on the right's desire to expand executive power, ignoring Congress when they don't agree with him... and broadening the role, scope and expense of government, weakening the Constitution and favoring Federal control and mandate, is he not?...the dems were happy to have all of this occur under Obama but seem terrified at the prospect of someone hostile to THEM having the same powers.....interesting:huh:

I think the premise is pretty simple. Some have done better under democrat leadership and that's why they tend to prefer it. I didn't see the word hegemony in the report, but to be honest I didn't read the entire thing.

Wall Street's doing well
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is not a surprise:rolleyes:...particularly for someone who constantly chastises others for supposedly not reading the links they post

Still clutching that Sanders flyer from yesterday I see. Soon you and Nebe will be sharing an Occupy tent.

😂 You're the one that has been bragging how well Wall Street has been doing the last few years under Obama . Oh yeah people working for the government have been doing amazingly well also .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought federal unions were outraged at Obama's last planned increase?

You do realize that government workers under Obama have gone down during his presidency right? I believe nearly 3/4 of a million people at the fed, state and local levels.

There were a lot of words I used that were not in the report. If I had used the same words as those in the report, I might have just rewritten the report.

The words (which are chock full of statisms such as "democracy" rather than Republic, "egalitarianism" rather than liberty, "groups" rather than individualism) used to craft the report, reputedly to help minorities choose the right party to advance their well-being, actually promotes racial political warfare rather than creating a color blind society. It promotes political factionalism and majoritarianism. It promotes dependence on government to shape lives. It devalues to the point of eliminating the importance of individual initiative and cultural values. It is the selective, slanted, statistically perfect divide and conquer storm which helps to finally transform us from a once constitutional Republic into an all-powerful, centralized, administrative State.

Yet the cost government continues to go through the roof. Debt continues to accumulate and what we ( The 47% ) get for our tax dollars continues to decline .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and which Obama policy resulted in this reduction??