First Ladies of the USA - time for some civillity, folks.

[DriftingSand]

I must concede. Michelle is pretty elegant and graceful. She puts these other two ladies to shame:

 

[HenryBHough]

I believe it's not so much people "loving" things Putin is doing so much as it is despising the things Our Kenyan President is doing. Putin, in normal times, would look like a shit. The comparison has him looking like gold.

It's all about the comparison - Americans generally prefer strength over weakness. Well, real Americans.

A leader who rolls troops into another nation's sovereign territory "looks like gold"? I suppose you would have applauded the Anschutz into the Sudetenland and Austria too. Americans looked askance at that move, well real Americans did.

Is the reading comprehension limitation genetic or generational?

 

[rightwinger]

I must concede. Michelle is pretty elegant and graceful. She puts these other two ladies to shame:

She is older than both of them combined but is in better shape

Want to compare those 20 year olds to Barbara Bush?

 

[DriftingSand]

I must concede. Michelle is pretty elegant and graceful. She puts these other two ladies to shame:

She is older than both of them combined but is in better shape

Want to compare those 20 year olds to Barbara Bush?

Read my post. I complemented her. She's hot ... the others are not. You sound as if you need to defend her for some reason. P.S. I'm not a fan of the Bush's.

 

[BDBoop]

I must concede. Michelle is pretty elegant and graceful. She puts these other two ladies to shame:

Sucks when you have to use Photoshop to make a point, doesn't it.

 

[DriftingSand]

Here's some more gorgeous snapshots. What a hotty!:

Mmmmmm. Tasty!

 

[rightwinger]

I must concede. Michelle is pretty elegant and graceful. She puts these other two ladies to shame:

She is older than both of them combined but is in better shape

Want to compare those 20 year olds to Barbara Bush?

Read my post. I complemented her. She's hot ... the others are not. You sound as if you need to defend her for some reason. P.S. I'm not a fan of the Bush's.

Sorry...for some reason, my Sarcasm detector went off

 

[DriftingSand]

I must concede. Michelle is pretty elegant and graceful. She puts these other two ladies to shame:

Sucks when you have to use Photoshop to make a point, doesn't it.

1) I didn't use photoshop
2) I'm not trying to make a point other than "pointing" out what a beauty queen she is.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[rightwinger]

Here's some more gorgeous snapshots. What a hotty!:

Mmmmmm. Tasty!

Photoshop is cool isnt it?

 

[BDBoop]

She is older than both of them combined but is in better shape

Want to compare those 20 year olds to Barbara Bush?

Read my post. I complemented her. She's hot ... the others are not. You sound as if you need to defend her for some reason. P.S. I'm not a fan of the Bush's.

Sorry...for some reason, my Sarcasm detector went off

Did you remember to change the batteries when we lost an hour?

 

[DriftingSand]

She is older than both of them combined but is in better shape

Want to compare those 20 year olds to Barbara Bush?

Read my post. I complemented her. She's hot ... the others are not. You sound as if you need to defend her for some reason. P.S. I'm not a fan of the Bush's.

Sorry...for some reason, my Sarcasm detector went off

No prob. Forgiven!

 

[Hossfly]

Here's some more gorgeous snapshots. What a hotty!:

Mmmmmm. Tasty!

Smells like fish, tastes like chicken.

 

[DriftingSand]

Here's some more gorgeous snapshots. What a hotty!:

Mmmmmm. Tasty!

Photoshop is cool isnt it?

Don't know. I've never tried it.

 

[Mertex]

See, that is an incriminating statement.

When the next President of the United States gets immediately pummeled by Progressives and Liberals and Democrats but for no reason, there may well be a sickening, embarrassing number of stupids who will act on the belief that cons slammed Obama for nothing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Tit-4-Tat! You cons slammed Clinton for nothing!'





So, I'm calling you on it NOW before you go another crazy day forward.

Obama has EARNED every bit of the criticism he's getting.

And then some.

So, I don't expect you going along with that movement.

I expect you to be on the honor system.

Police yourself or report yourself if you join that herd.

Criticize him if he really screws up, as Obama is screwing up.

But if he's taking steps to fix America give his medicine a chance to work before you jump on him.

Note to Self: Remind in 2017.

Go ahead and vote Republican....then maybe you'll need more than your picture ID to vote next time.....and maybe you'll not be allowed in any of the right-wing restaurants, you'll have to eat with them Libruls.....cause they'll have their signs posted that say "whites only"......enjoy.

The hell you imagine is the hell of a wildly imaginative, emotionally driven, exaggerating Liberal.

Conservative hell is pretty low key.

We think of stuff like putting poling places next to check cashing places.

If you can cash your welfare check you can vote.

Nothing heinous about that.

You Libs sure know how to make mountains out of no hills.

Maybe you think The Civil Rights Act is a "no hill", I don't. And, Libs whom you think are making mountains out of "no hills" are the ones that keep trying to make sure that blacks have the same rights as everyone else.....time and again, some of the politicians on the right yearn to go back to the past.....I suppose they've forgotten that back in the past blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, drink from a different water fountain, have their own substandard schools, etc., etc., but maybe they haven't forgotten, maybe they're reminiscing about that too, and are wondering how in the hell we ended up with a "black" president.

Not all conservatives are racist, but the ones that are will continue to push legislation that will undermine blacks and other minorities....many blacks and minorities were disenfranchised at the last election, maybe you don't care, thats fine, but don't try and act as if it isn't happening.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why do liberals so hate it when they get a taste of their own patented, trademarked Liberal Civility?

 

[DriftingSand]

Here's some more gorgeous snapshots. What a hotty!:

Mmmmmm. Tasty!

Smells like fish, tastes like chicken.

You're making me hungry.

 

[BDBoop]

I must concede. Michelle is pretty elegant and graceful. She puts these other two ladies to shame:

Sucks when you have to use Photoshop to make a point, doesn't it.

1) I didn't use photoshop
2) I'm not trying to make a point other than "pointing" out what a beauty queen she is.

Is that a bad thing?

The picture you shared? Photoshopped.

 

[Mojo2]

Please simply address the questions I posited. Why is the resistance to change always provided by Conservatives? Why aren't Conservatives at the fore front in the struggle for equal justice under law? And why should that be a struggle other than the resistance of Conservatives? And why has it always been that way?

Conservatives are wired that way, just as Liberals are hardwired that way.

From birth.

Right now there is an imbalance in our country and the Conservatives are being forced to exhibit their natural tendencies when they sense things going wrong.

They (we) seek to conserve what is important.

Why can't kids have cake and candy to eat every day three meals a day?

Because that is just too much of an imbalance.

Always remember what Mr. Miyagi advised.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPoBXemFmg]Mr. Miyagi - Balance - YouTube[/ame]




You Progressives want to change the interpretation of the Constitution from the Founder's meaning to racist President Woodrow Wilson's Progressive meaning. And you've just gone too damn far to the Left.

The third great crisis, which continues today, is the challenge of Progressivism, a movement founded by Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and others.

The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights.

Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent.

Constitution 101 - Part 1 - Lecture - Hillsdale College Online Courses

"The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles...in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent."

We are Conservatives because we are built to conserve what is good and in this case the good aspects of our Republic according to the FOUNDER'S INTENT.

You guys are just too far extreme.

But instead of calling us Conservatives maybe it would be easier for you to ease up on your push to oblivion if you thought of us as...

Balance.

women demand the vote. And Conservatives provide the resistance. Was that a constitutional crisis, or good old fashioned sexism? Blacks demand equal treatment under law. And Conservatives provide the resistance. Were grave constitutional issues at stake, or was it good old fashioned bigotry? Our workplaces became dangerous with the advent of mass industrialization. Workers demanded workplace safety regulations. Was it considered unconstitutional to promote the general welfare? Or was it the greedy side of Conservatism that provided the resistance.

Did the founding fathers provide means to amend the constitution whenever necessary? Or are you so sutured to a narrow idea of what the founders intended that you won't be happy until we are once again living under conditions that were prevailant in1789? No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and cholera outbreaks a normal summer phenomenon.

Don't hide behind the skirts of the founding fathers unless you are able to embrace all of their philosophies. Today's Rabid Rightwinger eschews statesmanship and compromise, even Ashe embraces a document that would be impossible to draft without statesmanship and compromise. Facet hearth. Conservatives have no real motivation to champion any causes for freedom, justice and equality. Conservatives never have, never will and will always put up a fight against civil rights and equal justice. I guess they are just wired that way.

Look, your cause is that of those racists and KKK fans who wish to do a little rehab to the Constitution without knowing WTF you are doing and what the result of it will be.

Why don't you fix LBJ's nightmarish reforms first and THEN start your next round of willy nilly changes?

Until then let's continue on the way the FOUNDERS wrote it.

Not the way a White Racist envisioned altering it to his liking.

APRIL 11, 2013 4:00 AM
Progressive Racism

Today’s progressives should consider the sobering history of Woodrow Wilson’s segregation policy.

By Paul Rahe

One hundred years ago today, Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to the North. He had been inaugurated on March 4, 1913. At a cabinet meeting on April 11, his postmaster general, Albert S. Burleson, suggested that the new administration segregate the railway mail service; and treasury secretary William G. McAdoo, who would soon become Wilson’s son-in-law, chimed in to signal his support. Wilson followed their lead. He had made a bid for the African-American vote in 1912, and he had attracted the support of figures such as W. E. B. Du Bois, but, as he put it at the meeting, he had made “no promises in particular to Negroes, except to do them justice.” Burleson’s proposal he welcomed, but he wanted “the matter adjusted in a way to make the least friction.”

Today, self-styled progressives are wont, with considerable abandon, to label as racists those who object to their attempts at social engineering. They would do well to rein in their rhetorical excesses and curb their enthusiasm for the administrative state — for the Progressives of yesteryear, on whom they model themselves, really were racists in the precise and proper sense of the term, and in formulating public policy they were true to their principles.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, ordinary Americans may generally have been in the grips of ethnic prejudice of one sort or another. The Progressives of that time were not, however, ordinary men, and they knew it. Like their successors today, they dominated America’s universities. With some justification, they thought of themselves as an intellectual elite; and, with rare exceptions, they enthusiastically embraced eugenics and racial theory.

That the inchoate racial prejudices of their contemporaries were grounded in fact they took to be a truth taught by science; and, being devotees of rational administration to the exclusion of all other concerns, they insisted that public policy conform to the dictates of the new racial science.

Wilson, our first professorial president, was a case in point. He was the very model of a modern Progressive, and he was recognized as such. He prided himself on having pioneered the new science of rational administration, and he shared the conviction, dominant among his brethren, that African-Americans were racially inferior to whites.

With the dictates of Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement in mind, in 1907, he campaigned in Indiana for the compulsory sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded; and in 1911, while governor of New Jersey, he proudly signed into law just such a bill.

Prior to the segregation of the civil service in 1913, appointments had been made solely on merit as indicated by the candidate’s performance on the civil-service examination.

Thereafter, racial discrimination became the norm.

Photographs came to be required at the time of application, and African-Americans knew they would not be hired.

The existing work force was segregated. Many African-Americans were dismissed. In the postal service, others were transferred to the dead-letter office, where they had no contact with the general public.

Those who continued to work in municipal post offices labored behind screens — out of sight and out of mind. When the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Independent Political League objected to the new policy, Wilson — a Presbyterian elder who was nothing if not high-minded — vigorously defended it, arguing that segregation was in the interest of African-Americans.

For 35 years, segregation in the civil service would be public policy. It was only after Adolf Hitler gave eugenics and “scientific racism” a bad name that segregation came to seem objectionable.

Progressive Racism | National Review Online

Try to defend that.

And don't forget to bring a PHOTOGRAPH for an I.D. if you are applying FOR A JOB!!!!

Progressives?

More like KKK.

 

[DriftingSand]

Why do liberals so hate it when they get a taste of their own patented, trademarked Liberal Civility?

I must say ... there is some real truth to your post. I've seen progressives swarm conservative threads like Old Testament locusts or like Hitchcock's birds.

 

[BDBoop]

But you are correct in one thing. She is quite graceful and elegant.