President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[JBlake]

Another very interesting thing is that while Clinton was SOS, her department received two awards for outstanding record keeping practices.

Basically that reminds me of the time I was working at this very large company and our department manager physically assaulted one of the people in the office. A week later everyone got a bonus, out of nowhere, just an appreciation bonus from the department manager who physically assaulted the person. Total payoff is what it is. Another time someone called another person in the office a racial slur. The person who was called the racial slur received a bonus shortly after complaining to management. Hush money basically.

How many people got bonus' and pay raises and/or promotions working in Hillary's office after receiving these two awards for "outstanding record keeping practices"?

Clinton's State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries

By STEPHEN BRAUN

Jun. 24, 2016 12:27 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met. The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to AP after it sued the government in federal court.

The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror the other, more detailed records of her daily meetings.

At a time when Clinton's private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the "risk of the personal being accessible" — as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered in a top aide's inbox.



The AP found the omissions by comparing the 1,500-page calendar with separate planning schedules supplied to Clinton by aides in advance of each day's events. The names of at least 114 outsiders who met with Clinton were missing from her calendar, the records show.

[Boomchild]

Well what do you know, it's not just Americans that feel dealing with these refugees poses threats.

Arab monarchies turn down Syrian refugees over security threat

Yet, while Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt have taken in around 5 million refugees, and boatloads of the destitute are making their way to Europe, the Gulf states have taken only a few hundred refugees, according to data from the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR).

Al-Ahmed also confirmed that Syrians were thought by the conservative Gulf monarchies to pose a cultural and political risk.

"The Saudis worry that Syrians are a security threat," he said. "They have ideas of revolution."

http://www.dw.com/en/arab-monarchies-tu ... a-19002873

[Monker]

Man, the Globalist Elite really took it in the ass yesterday. Brussels is shock, Cameron resigning, Obama bitch slapped by the Supremes...days don't get much better than that.

BTW Monker, this is all pointing to the Trump trend right here. Believe it.

...so Trump goes golfing in Scottland and writes how much they love the vote. What an idiot. THAT is the "Trump trend.".

I am just glad I took my money out of the market a couple weeks ago...perfect timing.

Global falling markets, economic uncertainty for the new Little England in the foreseeable future, and the probable end of the UK. Yeah, that's a wonderful trend that Trump is latching onto there.

[Monker]

Yeah, because we all know we should emulate Saudi Arabia. They are such a beacon for human rights and democracy. Sure.

Well what do you know, it's not just Americans that feel dealing with these refugees poses threats.

Arab monarchies turn down Syrian refugees over security threat

Yet, while Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt have taken in around 5 million refugees, and boatloads of the destitute are making their way to Europe, the Gulf states have taken only a few hundred refugees, according to data from the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR).

Al-Ahmed also confirmed that Syrians were thought by the conservative Gulf monarchies to pose a cultural and political risk.

"The Saudis worry that Syrians are a security threat," he said. "They have ideas of revolution."

http://www.dw.com/en/arab-monarchies-tu ... a-19002873

[Boomchild]

Yeah, because we all know we should emulate Saudi Arabia. They are such a beacon for human rights and democracy. Sure.

Thank you for pointing out the true face of so called "Moderate Muslims".

[Monker]

Yeah, because we all know we should emulate Saudi Arabia. They are such a beacon for human rights and democracy. Sure.

Thank you for pointing out the true face of so called "Moderate Muslims".

How foolish you are to believe Saudi Arabia is "moderate Muslim". All but one of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. They are right in the midst of the "radical Islam" controversy. The "moderate" government exists because they bent to the will of the radical factions of Islam. When it comes down to it, they agree with ISIS more than they disagree. We only tolerate it because we need them to feed our oil addiction. For them to not accept Syrian refugees is really not that surprising.

Examples of "moderate Islam" in other countries: India, Malayasia, Indonesia, even countries like Kuwait, UAI, Jordan or some of the former Soviet republics in the near east. But, Saudi Arabia LOL...you're too ignorant to speak on the subject if you believe their politics and beliefs on the subject are "moderate".

Your bigoted and racist brain is allowing you to use 1% of all Muslims as being representative of an entire religion. It's just unrealistic, non-factual, and wrong...born from your ignorance and stupidity.

[Boomchild]

How foolish you are to believe Saudi Arabia is "moderate Muslim". All but one of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. They are right in the midst of the "radical Islam" controversy. The "moderate" government exists because they bent to the will of the radical factions of Islam. When it comes down to it, they agree with ISIS more than they disagree. We only tolerate it because we need them to feed our oil addiction. For them to not accept Syrian refugees is really not that surprising.

Examples of "moderate Islam" in other countries: India, Malayasia, Indonesia, even countries like Kuwait, UAI, Jordan or some of the former Soviet republics in the near east. But, Saudi Arabia LOL...you're too ignorant to speak on the subject if you believe their politics and beliefs on the subject are "moderate".

Your bigoted and racist brain is allowing you to use 1% of all Muslims as being representative of an entire religion. It's just unrealistic, non-factual, and wrong...born from your ignorance and stupidity.

Funny, some how I doubt Hillary nor B.O. would paint the same picture of Saudi Arabia as you have done above. Radical Islam is spreading and not contracting. So I'll take your reference of 1% with a grain of salt. The religion is archaic, backwards, oppressive, intolerant and hasn't had a single reformation in eight centuries. Where are all the Muslim clerics speaking out against the archaic, oppressive and intolerant beliefs in Islam? This label of "Moderate Muslim" is more of a PR statement then anything else. While these so called moderates may not support the beliefs of jihad they still believe in tenants of Islam that the modern or western world consider oppressive. Things that liberals say they are against yet continue to champion the cause for tolerance for Islam. Let's take homosexuality as an example. Here is a PEW research pole of Muslims and how they responded.

[Monker]

Funny, some how I doubt Hillary nor B.O. would paint the same picture of Saudi Arabia as you have done above.

So what? As I said, we want their oil.

Radical Islam is spreading and not contracting.

I don't think it's doing much of either.

The religion is archaic, backwards, oppressive, intolerant and hasn't had a single reformation in eight centuries.

Only from your point of view...which is to look at the most radical side of things.

Where are all the Muslim clerics speaking out against the archaic, oppressive and intolerant beliefs in Islam?

Where are all of the Christian pastors doing the same for Christianity?

This label of "Moderate Muslim" is more of a PR statement then anything else. While these so called moderates may not support the beliefs of jihad they still believe in tenants of Islam that the modern or western world consider oppressive. Things that liberals say they are against yet continue to champion the cause for tolerance for Islam. Let's take homosexuality as an example. Here is a PEW research pole of Muslims and how they responded.

Now you are just making shit up. There is also a Pew study on the EXACT SAME QUESTION but removing religion from it. What they found is the more faith based a country is the more they were against homosexuality. In other words...you are connecting your study to YOUR opinion rather than the big picture of what it means : Religion itself breeds hatred towards gays...any religion, not just Muslims/Islam.

There is also a Pew study that found that in the US gay marriage is more accepted by Muslims than by evangelical Christians.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-am ... kely-to-su
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the ... sexuality/

[Boomchild]

Influential British Imam: Put the Gays to Death ‘wherever you are’

Liberals continue to attack Christians for their belief in traditional marriage, but remain silent when it comes to radical Muslims promoting the systematic execution of gays. This week, Britain’s most influential radical Imam voiced his support for Omar Mateen’s brand of punishment for homosexuals:

Gays should be put to death under sharia law whether the Islamic doctrine is implemented in Muslim countries or the West, exclaimed Britain’s most notorious radical Islamist preacher, Anjem Choudary, during an interview.

Asked whether gays who were confirmed to have engaged in homosexual acts should be stoned under sharia law, Choudary replied:

They would be wherever you are, whether in the East or the West, if we had the Sharia implemented, as you say, with a judiciary, with a legitimate leader and the courts, etc., were there. Then yes. They will face capital punishment. I mean, people differ about the way that punishment would be implemented, but it would be the death penalty.

Choudary was speaking in a joint interview with Breitbart News and this reporter’s Sunday night weekend national talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”

Don’t expect anywhere near the level of outrage that liberals reserve for conservatives, Christians, and Donald Trump over Choudary’s remarks. After all, they would not want to appear Islamaphobic.

http://www.truthandaction.org/influenti ... you-are/2/

[The_Noble_Cause]

Where are all of the Christian pastors doing the same for Christianity?

What a bogus and false comparison. Only in Liberalland are fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church somehow equivalent to ISIS. The largest modern Christian terrorist group, the KKK, at one time had membership in the millions. It's now down to a few thousand. Meanwhile, 6,000 Europeans alone have joined ISIS. Easy to stick your head in the sand when you're always on your knees.

[Monker]

Where are all of the Christian pastors doing the same for Christianity?

What a bogus and false comparison. Only in Liberalland are fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church somehow equivalent to ISIS.

I'm glad the most liberal person on the forum agrees with me.

The largest modern Christian terrorist group, the KKK,

So, the KKK is a Christian group and represents Christian values and therefore Christianity in the US can be judged by the KKK's actions...just as you and Boom feel ISIS represents all Muslims. That what you are saying in the statement above.

[Monker]

Influential British Imam: Put the Gays to Death ‘wherever you are’

Liberals continue to attack Christians for their belief in traditional marriage, but remain silent when it comes to radical Muslims promoting the systematic execution of gays. This week, Britain’s most influential radical Imam voiced his support for Omar Mateen’s brand of punishment for homosexuals:

Gays should be put to death under sharia law whether the Islamic doctrine is implemented in Muslim countries or the West, exclaimed Britain’s most notorious radical Islamist preacher, Anjem Choudary, during an interview.

Asked whether gays who were confirmed to have engaged in homosexual acts should be stoned under sharia law, Choudary replied:

They would be wherever you are, whether in the East or the West, if we had the Sharia implemented, as you say, with a judiciary, with a legitimate leader and the courts, etc., were there. Then yes. They will face capital punishment. I mean, people differ about the way that punishment would be implemented, but it would be the death penalty.

Choudary was speaking in a joint interview with Breitbart News and this reporter’s Sunday night weekend national talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”

Don’t expect anywhere near the level of outrage that liberals reserve for conservatives, Christians, and Donald Trump over Choudary’s remarks. After all, they would not want to appear Islamaphobic.

http://www.truthandaction.org/influenti ... you-are/2/

Again, so what? You are taking a radical cleric and applying his words to all of Islam.

When a few years ago Pat Roberson blamed the Haiti Earthquake on Voodoo doctors making a pact with the Devil to gain independence for Haiti, did that also represent the views of all of Christianity?

Or, maybe it was when he blamed Katrina on the abortion debate? That represented all of Christianity?

Or, maybe Jerry Falwell was representing all Christians when he blamed the 9/11 attacks on, ""the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle," and God lifting his protection.

It's ridiculous....and you are being ridiculous by allowing radicals to define nearly two billion people. Think about that number and what you are saying. If a significant portion of that number believed the way you describe, this world would fundamentally be a different place.

[The_Noble_Cause]

So, the KKK is a Christian group and represents Christian values and therefore Christianity in the US can be judged by the KKK's actions...just as you and Boom feel ISIS represents all Muslims. That what you are saying in the statement above.

At the peak of it's activity, Christianity could absolutely be judged by the KKK. In the 1920s, the KKK even had their own baseball teams. It was part of mainstream society.

[Monker]

The KKK was a bunch of good ol boy Democrats.

Why should I care? I'm not a Democrat.

How about a little history lesson Monker.

There is a reason why your "history lesson" turned into propaganda after 1964. At that point, Republicans started to turn their back on blacks...especially after Goldwater proved they could win the south by doing so. Goldwater's rhetoric from the time, which was the foundation for the Conservative movement, solidified the black vote being almost entirely for the Democrats....and Republicans have done little to change that. Now, the black vote was moving towards Democrats prior to 1964 due to economics...but the words of Goldwater solidified it. "Small government, a government that doesn't give out handouts to black people. A government that doesn't have laws that interfere with states' rights. A government that is not conducting a war on poverty."

This is the very reason why Trump scares so many Republicans. He is further cementing the black vote for Democrats...but, in addition, his rhetoric towards Mexicans may solidify the Hispanic vote for the Democrats as well. If that happens, the Republicans will not win a national election for decades.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Now, the black vote was moving towards Democrats prior to 1964 due to economics...but the words of Goldwater solidified it. "Small government, a government that doesn't give out handouts to black people. A government that doesn't have laws that interfere with states' rights. A government that is not conducting a war on poverty."

One problem -Goldwater NEVER said that. Those are the words of professor, Peniel Joseph, discussing Goldwater. You may want to cherry pick your facts more carefully next time. I've discussed the Southern Strategy and how the parties switched ideologically many times. Either way, shitty scholarship is unacceptable even if you are mostly correct.

Your bullshit quote is from this article (where it's attributed to Joseph).
May want to re-read it.
If you truly knew Goldwater, who was pretty progressive for the time, you would know he was much smarter than to EVER say something like that.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/ ... -the-1960s

[The_Noble_Cause]

Monkers simple art to the argument. If he doesn't like it, it's propaganda. Or, attack the source, or the age of the source. Never let facts get in the way. History is just that, history. The Democratic Party is far more responsible for holding blacks back then any other. And Margaret Sanger is on record saying far worse then that. Tell me, if your not a Democrat, then what? Communist?

Anybody attributing fake quotes is bad news in my book. Do your research for fuck's sake.

[JBlake]

Monkers simple art to the argument. If he doesn't like it, it's propaganda. Or, attack the source, or the age of the source. Never let facts get in the way. History is just that, history. The Democratic Party is far more responsible for holding blacks back then any other. And Margaret Sanger is on record saying far worse then that. Tell me, if your not a Democrat, then what? Communist?

Not only that, but also, through research I learned that the KKK initially attacked Republicans for sympathizing/helping blacks. I got to question what they are teaching kids in high school these days. Do they ever teach them history anymore? Or only modern history starting from like 1992? Do high school kids even know that the Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves? I think the only things they teach the kids are post-Rodney King riots.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Do high school kids even know that the Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves?

Being a "Republican" in the 1800s doesn't mean what you think it does. Abe was a Northern Republican. The Northern Repubs were moderate. Abe Lincoln and Karl Marx wrote letters to each other. Abe imprisoned journalists and suspended habeus corpus. Under his leadership, America gained the distinction as the only country that fought a violent war to end slavery. Overall, Abe was a pretty shitty president.

[Monker]

Monkers simple art to the argument. If he doesn't like it, it's propaganda. Or, attack the source, or the age of the source. Never let facts get in the way. History is just that, history. The Democratic Party is far more responsible for holding blacks back then any other. And Margaret Sanger is on record saying far worse then that. Tell me, if your not a Democrat, then what? Communist?

I will never subscribe to ANY party. I am an independent. In this election, I'll most likely vote for Johnson. But, I *KNOW* Clinton will still win.

You are simply quoting things that Republicans have always quoted to "prove" they are the party that blacks should vote for. The problem is everybody sees through the bullshit and "the blacks", as Daffy Donald would say, know they are against almost every policy that they are for.

Republicans had no where near the issues with the black vote back before 1964. YOU explain why an entire race of people now vote 90% Democrat, if the Democrats are holding them back. The Republicans traded the black vote for the conservative white vote....which Goldwater proved they could win...and Nixon proved, and Reagan proved.

[Monker]

Monkers simple art to the argument. If he doesn't like it, it's propaganda. Or, attack the source, or the age of the source. Never let facts get in the way. History is just that, history. The Democratic Party is far more responsible for holding blacks back then any other. And Margaret Sanger is on record saying far worse then that. Tell me, if your not a Democrat, then what? Communist?

Not only that, but also, through research I learned that the KKK initially attacked Republicans for sympathizing/helping blacks. I got to question what they are teaching kids in high school these days. Do they ever teach them history anymore? Or only modern history starting from like 1992? Do high school kids even know that the Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves? I think the only things they teach the kids are post-Rodney King riots.

So, you are saying we should forget modern history and judge the Republican party for their action in the 1800's. You're a nut.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I will never subscribe to ANY party. I am an independent. In this election, I'll most likely vote for Johnson. But, I *KNOW* Clinton will still win.

Anybody on here besides Monker actually believe this?

Would an independent and potential Johnson-voter use a false quote to smear the father of Libertarianism, Barry Goldwater?
Would an independent unquestioningly lie for Hillary Clinton ("she had permission to use a private sever!").
These are the actions by a liberal ideologue defending his party at the expense of the truth.

Give me a break...

[Monker]

What modern history shows Republicans to be racist?

Who is saying Republicans are racist? That little voice in your head isn't real.

[Monker]

I will never subscribe to ANY party. I am an independent. In this election, I'll most likely vote for Johnson. But, I *KNOW* Clinton will still win.

Anybody on here besides Monker actually believe this?

Would an independent and potential Johnson-voter use a false quote to smear the father of Libertarianism, Barry Goldwater?
Would an independent unquestioningly lie for Hillary Clinton ("she had permission to use a private sever!").
These are the actions by a liberal ideologue defending his party at the expense of the truth.

Give me a break...

He asked, I answered. If someone doesn't like my answer, that's fine.

[Monker]

So, the Benghazi inquisition was a titanic waste of time and money to find.....absolutely nothing.

Gee, who would have predicted that? Oh, wait, I would have. The RNC should have to pay the cost of this investigation back to the general budget. Maybe split the cost with FOX. What a bunch of bullshit.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Monker - don't change the subject to Benghazi. You just quoted Barry Goldwater and the quote was false. You going to explain this? First you were caught lying for Hillary and now you're falsifying quotes. Care to explain yourself?

[tj]

From: Caitlin Klevorick B6 Date: October 1, 2012, 8:10:03 PM EDT To: Cheryl Mills B6 Subject: Benghazi was obama's 3 am call • GLOBAL VIEW • October 1, 2012, 7:17 p.m. ET Stephens: Benghazi Was Obama's 3 a.m. Call Libya was a failure of policy and worldview, not intelligence. Why won't the Libya story go away? Why can't the memory of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff be consigned to the same sad-and-sealed file of Americans killed abroad in dangerous line of duty? How has an episode that seemed at first to have been mishandled by the Romney camp become an emblem of a feckless and deluded foreign policy? The story-switching and stonewalling haven't helped. But let's start a little earlier. The hour is 5 p.m., Sept. 11, Washington time, and the scene is an Oval Office meeting among President °barna, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi has been under assault for roughly 90 minutes. Some 30 U.S. citizens are at mortal risk. The whereabouts of Ambassador Stevens are unknown. What is uppermost on the minds of the president and his advisers? The safety of Americans, no doubt. So what are they prepared to do about it? Here is The Wall Street Journal's account of the meeting: "There was no serious consideration at that hour of intervention with military force, officials said. Doing so without Libya's permission could represent a violation of sovereignty and UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739633 STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM. UNCLASSIFIED STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM. U.S. Department of State SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739633 Date: 05/13/2015 inflame the situation, they said. Instead, the State Department reached out to the Libyan government to get reinforcements to the scene." So it did. Yet the attack was far from over. After leaving the principal U.S. compound, the Americans retreated to a second, supposedly secret facility, which soon came under deadly mortar fire. Time to call in the troops? "Some officials said the U.S. could also have sent aircraft to the scene as a 'show of force' to scare off the attackers," the Journal reported, noting that there's a U.S. air base just 450 miles away in Sicily. "State Department officials dismissed the suggestions as unrealistic. 'They would not have gotten there in two hours, four hours or six hours." The U.S. security detail only left Washington at 8 a.m. on Sept. 12, more than 10 hours after the attacks began. A commercial jet liner can fly from D.C. to Benghazi in about the same time. All this is noted with the benefit of hindsight, and the administration deserves to be judged accordingly. But it also deserves to be judged in light of what it knew prior to the attack, including an attack on the mission in June and heightened threat warnings throughout the summer. So how did the administration do on that count? "That the local security did so well back in June probably gave us a false sense of security," an unnamed American official who has served in Libya told the New York Times last week. The logic here is akin to supposing that because the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center failed to bring down the towers, nobody need have been concerned thereafter. But let's still make allowances for the kind of bureaucratic ineptitude that knows neither administration nor political party. The more serious question is why the administration alighted on the idea that the attack wasn't a terrorist act at all. Also, what did the White House think it had to gain by adopting the jihadist narrative that a supposedly inflammatory video clip was at the root of the trouble? Nobody can say. All the administration will acknowledge is that it has "revised [its] initial assessment to reflect new information that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack." That's from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. It suggests that our intelligence agencies are either much dumber than previously supposed (always a strong possibility) or much more politicized (equally plausible). No doubt the administration would now like to shift blame to Mr. Clapper. But what happened in Benghazi was not a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of policy, stemming from a flawed worldview and the political needs of an election season. Let's review: The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration's concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan "sovereignty" and the need for "permission." After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739633 STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM. UNCLASSIFIED STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM. U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. Doc No. C05739633 Date: 05/13/2015 defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obarna than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration's reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it's time to blame the intel munchkins and move on. It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obaxna took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it.

Can read this without some sort of grammar fix. Paragraphs would be great. Thanks for posting, though.

[steveo777]

New Doc's expose Lerner broke the law.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/29 ... e-the-law/

That ship is gone.

[The_Noble_Cause]

but the words of Goldwater solidified it. "Small government, a government that doesn't give out handouts to black people. A government that doesn't have laws that interfere with states' rights. A government that is not conducting a war on poverty."

Re-posting this for posterity. Monker is a total fraud. He poses as the MR.com resident historian, but his superficial knowledge is dictated by how fast he can Google. Goldwater didn't say this at all. Shilling for Hillary ("she had permission to use a private server!") and false quotes is the Monker liberal way!

[JBlake]

Monkers simple art to the argument. If he doesn't like it, it's propaganda. Or, attack the source, or the age of the source. Never let facts get in the way. History is just that, history. The Democratic Party is far more responsible for holding blacks back then any other. And Margaret Sanger is on record saying far worse then that. Tell me, if your not a Democrat, then what? Communist?

Not only that, but also, through research I learned that the KKK initially attacked Republicans for sympathizing/helping blacks. I got to question what they are teaching kids in high school these days. Do they ever teach them history anymore? Or only modern history starting from like 1992? Do high school kids even know that the Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves? I think the only things they teach the kids are post-Rodney King riots.

So, you are saying we should forget modern history and judge the Republican party for their action in the 1800's. You're a nut.

Yeah pick and choose what history to teach in school that fits your demented liberal agenda. Typical scumbag lib dem.

[Monker]

So, you are saying we should forget modern history and judge the Republican party for their action in the 1800's. You're a nut.

Yeah pick and choose what history to teach in school that fits your demented liberal agenda. Typical scumbag lib dem.

How am I picking and choosing anything? YOU are saying to only consider the 1800's and not the fact that starting in 1964 Republicans started ignoring black issues in order to win the south. That is just as truthful and historic as the other things in that list. THAT is why in today's world the Democrats get 90% of the black vote....it's not because "the blacks" are stoopid, or because of some liberal agenda. You are just blind and ignorant because of the propaganda you read.