Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You gave some names, so what. The confirmed academic and scholarly and popular opinion is that the majority if southern white racists trotted over to the GOP in the 1960s through the 1970s. Your dislike of the fact is immaterial.Nope. I named a few who changed and a lot who didn't. Your denial is meaningless because the FACTS show you're wrong.
Sure. You're right. Her views represent the basic tenets of the Democrat party. It has been the Republicans advocating marriage equality for years now.Her party affiliation is immaterial to this case. She is displaying the attitudes of Social Conservatism. She certainly is knot displaying the attitudes of a Christian. Her party registration could be Whig for all that matters. She is a Social Conservative on the face of it, she may be a Fiscal Conservative as well. But she is not behaving under the aegis of any political party, so her party affiliation is a moot point.Ya mean Democrats like Mike Huckabee and Li'l Ricky Santorum?She's an intolerant bigot who is a member of the Democratic Party and has been supported by other Democrats so she could represent them and their views.
There's a difference between ideology and political party affiliation.
No, they are Republicans. She is a Democrat, elected by other Democrats to be the Clerk of that County. Guess that embarrasses you and you want to deflect. Don't blame you.
As far as ideology and political party affliation differences, apparently those differences don't manifest when talking about Republicans. How many of you tried to smear all Republicans with the views of Claire McCaskill's handpicked opponent, Todd Aikn?
Her party affiliation is material because she has run on her viewpoints and gotten elected by your fellow Democrats. So, she represents Democratic views.
And the overwhelming evidence suggest that you are living in Bizzaro World.
You have not smeared anyone or anything. You have given us much merriment. Continue, please.Frustrates you guys when you get smeared the way you usually smear Republicans with the most extreme views, I see. Thanks for a weekend full of laughs.Sure. You're right. Her views represent the basic tenets of the Democrat party. It has been the Republicans advocating marriage equality for years now.Her party affiliation is immaterial to this case. She is displaying the attitudes of Social Conservatism. She certainly is knot displaying the attitudes of a Christian. Her party registration could be Whig for all that matters. She is a Social Conservative on the face of it, she may be a Fiscal Conservative as well. But she is not behaving under the aegis of any political party, so her party affiliation is a moot point.Ya mean Democrats like Mike Huckabee and Li'l Ricky Santorum?
There's a difference between ideology and political party affiliation.
No, they are Republicans. She is a Democrat, elected by other Democrats to be the Clerk of that County. Guess that embarrasses you and you want to deflect. Don't blame you.
As far as ideology and political party affliation differences, apparently those differences don't manifest when talking about Republicans. How many of you tried to smear all Republicans with the views of Claire McCaskill's handpicked opponent, Todd Aikn?
Her party affiliation is material because she has run on her viewpoints and gotten elected by your fellow Democrats. So, she represents Democratic views.
And the overwhelming evidence suggest that you are living in Bizzaro World.
You gave some names, so what. The confirmed academic and scholarly and popular opinion is that the majority if southern white racists trotted over to the GOP in the 1960s through the 1970s. Your dislike of the fact is immaterial.Nope. I named a few who changed and a lot who didn't. Your denial is meaningless because the FACTS show you're wrong.
You have not smeared anyone or anything. You have given us much merriment. Continue, please.Frustrates you guys when you get smeared the way you usually smear Republicans with the most extreme views, I see. Thanks for a weekend full of laughs.Sure. You're right. Her views represent the basic tenets of the Democrat party. It has been the Republicans advocating marriage equality for years now.Her party affiliation is immaterial to this case. She is displaying the attitudes of Social Conservatism. She certainly is knot displaying the attitudes of a Christian. Her party registration could be Whig for all that matters. She is a Social Conservative on the face of it, she may be a Fiscal Conservative as well. But she is not behaving under the aegis of any political party, so her party affiliation is a moot point.No, they are Republicans. She is a Democrat, elected by other Democrats to be the Clerk of that County. Guess that embarrasses you and you want to deflect. Don't blame you.
As far as ideology and political party affliation differences, apparently those differences don't manifest when talking about Republicans. How many of you tried to smear all Republicans with the views of Claire McCaskill's handpicked opponent, Todd Aikn?
Her party affiliation is material because she has run on her viewpoints and gotten elected by your fellow Democrats. So, she represents Democratic views.
And the overwhelming evidence suggest that you are living in Bizzaro World.
You "smeared" nothing. You merely showed that you cannot distinguish between political ideology and party identity. You cannot believe that there are Conservative Democrats or Liberal Republicans.Sure. You're right. Her views represent the basic tenets of the Democrat party. It has been the Republicans advocating marriage equality for years now.Her party affiliation is immaterial to this case. She is displaying the attitudes of Social Conservatism. She certainly is knot displaying the attitudes of a Christian. Her party registration could be Whig for all that matters. She is a Social Conservative on the face of it, she may be a Fiscal Conservative as well. But she is not behaving under the aegis of any political party, so her party affiliation is a moot point.Ya mean Democrats like Mike Huckabee and Li'l Ricky Santorum?
There's a difference between ideology and political party affiliation.
No, they are Republicans. She is a Democrat, elected by other Democrats to be the Clerk of that County. Guess that embarrasses you and you want to deflect. Don't blame you.
As far as ideology and political party affliation differences, apparently those differences don't manifest when talking about Republicans. How many of you tried to smear all Republicans with the views of Claire McCaskill's handpicked opponent, Todd Aikn?
Her party affiliation is material because she has run on her viewpoints and gotten elected by your fellow Democrats. So, she represents Democratic views.
And the overwhelming evidence suggest that you are living in Bizzaro World.
Frustrates you guys when you get smeared the way you usually smear Republicans with the most extreme views, I see. Thanks for a weekend full of laughs.
You "smeared" nothing. You merely showed that you cannot distinguish between political ideology and party identity. You cannot believe that there are Conservative Democrats or Liberal Republicans.Sure. You're right. Her views represent the basic tenets of the Democrat party. It has been the Republicans advocating marriage equality for years now.Her party affiliation is immaterial to this case. She is displaying the attitudes of Social Conservatism. She certainly is knot displaying the attitudes of a Christian. Her party registration could be Whig for all that matters. She is a Social Conservative on the face of it, she may be a Fiscal Conservative as well. But she is not behaving under the aegis of any political party, so her party affiliation is a moot point.No, they are Republicans. She is a Democrat, elected by other Democrats to be the Clerk of that County. Guess that embarrasses you and you want to deflect. Don't blame you.
As far as ideology and political party affliation differences, apparently those differences don't manifest when talking about Republicans. How many of you tried to smear all Republicans with the views of Claire McCaskill's handpicked opponent, Todd Aikn?
Her party affiliation is material because she has run on her viewpoints and gotten elected by your fellow Democrats. So, she represents Democratic views.
And the overwhelming evidence suggest that you are living in Bizzaro World.
Frustrates you guys when you get smeared the way you usually smear Republicans with the most extreme views, I see. Thanks for a weekend full of laughs.
Someone (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck et al) has really done you a great disservice by stunting your political IQ.
Hunarchy is fun to play punarchy with.
His "smear" is silly, and all know it.
The fact remains that the far right attempts to revise history always fail.
Yes, you have; no, you have not; and, yes, the willful ignorancy of the far right is obvious.Hunarchy is fun to play punarchy with.
His "smear" is silly, and all know it.
The fact remains that the far right attempts to revise history always fail.
I haven't tried to revise history. All I've done is point out the truth. That only fails with the willfully ignorant.
Yes, you have; no, you have not; and, yes, the willful ignorancy of the far right is obvious.Hunarchy is fun to play punarchy with.
His "smear" is silly, and all know it.
The fact remains that the far right attempts to revise history always fail.
I haven't tried to revise history. All I've done is point out the truth. That only fails with the willfully ignorant.
You are describing yourself, you know. Give me a reason to post proof, and I will, but assertions unsupported don't require it.Yes, you have; no, you have not; and, yes, the willful ignorancy of the far right is obvious.Hunarchy is fun to play punarchy with.
His "smear" is silly, and all know it.
The fact remains that the far right attempts to revise history always fail.
I haven't tried to revise history. All I've done is point out the truth. That only fails with the willfully ignorant.
You still make statements as if they are facts when there is no proof for them. I have no time for the "I know you are but what am I" debaters that never post proof.
Have a good day, though.
I never said the GOP is monolithic. I'm saying there is a radical right wing faction in the GOP seeking to purge the 'ideologically impure' from the ranks. This faction seeks to drag the GOP into an untenable political position. The new 'base' is radically loud and angry and limited in their general electability. But, they want control and I guess, control they'll get. How that works out in the long run is predictable.You "smeared" nothing. You merely showed that you cannot distinguish between political ideology and party identity. You cannot believe that there are Conservative Democrats or Liberal Republicans.Sure. You're right. Her views represent the basic tenets of the Democrat party. It has been the Republicans advocating marriage equality for years now.Her party affiliation is immaterial to this case. She is displaying the attitudes of Social Conservatism. She certainly is knot displaying the attitudes of a Christian. Her party registration could be Whig for all that matters. She is a Social Conservative on the face of it, she may be a Fiscal Conservative as well. But she is not behaving under the aegis of any political party, so her party affiliation is a moot point.
Her party affiliation is material because she has run on her viewpoints and gotten elected by your fellow Democrats. So, she represents Democratic views.
And the overwhelming evidence suggest that you are living in Bizzaro World.
Frustrates you guys when you get smeared the way you usually smear Republicans with the most extreme views, I see. Thanks for a weekend full of laughs.
Someone (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck et al) has really done you a great disservice by stunting your political IQ.
Sorry you got butt-hurt. But, think about this next time you try to portray the Republcian Party as Monolithic. There actually more factions on the Right than on the Left.
You are describing yourself, you know. Give me a reason to post proof, and I will, but assertions unsupported don't require it.Yes, you have; no, you have not; and, yes, the willful ignorancy of the far right is obvious.Hunarchy is fun to play punarchy with.
His "smear" is silly, and all know it.
The fact remains that the far right attempts to revise history always fail.
I haven't tried to revise history. All I've done is point out the truth. That only fails with the willfully ignorant.
You still make statements as if they are facts when there is no proof for them. I have no time for the "I know you are but what am I" debaters that never post proof.
Have a good day, though.
May your day be good, too.
Nonsense, as you know well. Who was the Senate majority leader who lost his postion for fawning up to Strom Thurmond. Hmmm? Nixon's southern strategy worked wonders by 1980 in moving all of the racist whites and many of the more conservative whites into the southern GOP.
Sure it does, you know that. Crunch the electoral vote. Jimmy gave the white south hope in 1976, he broke it, and they went back to the GOP. Look at the states, son, look at the states in 68, 72, 76, and 80.
The southern strategy is a done deal in American history books and classes, and you revisionists are held up as the exceptions that prove the rule.
Back to the OP, now. Has Kim Davis gone to work today and has she perfomed her duties impartially?
You have no idea who wrote college history books? OK. Yeah, I heard the same, she goes back on Friday and Monday. I hear a federal marshal will spend the day she returns in the office. The second she attempts to interfere with the issuance of marriage certificates, she will be arrested.American history books written by liberal college professors? I have no idea. I heard on the news this morning she was taking a few days off. Might not go back to work until Friday or Monday.Sure it does, you know that. Crunch the electoral vote. Jimmy gave the white south hope in 1976, he broke it, and they went back to the GOP. Look at the states, son, look at the states in 68, 72, 76, and 80.
The southern strategy is a done deal in American history books and classes, and you revisionists are held up as the exceptions that prove the rule.
Back to the OP, now. Has Kim Davis gone to work today and has she perfomed her duties impartially?
