First Redeemer’s Lee, who was among the evangelical leaders trying to find a consensus candidate in January, has warned his church members that this is the most important campaign of their lifetimes. “There is a common spirit of concern that we are losing America,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-super-tuesday-approaches-gop-candidates-focus-on-evangelical-voters/2012/02/27/gIQAtp5wmR_story_1.html

Mr. Lee needs to be reminded that America is not and never has been a theocracy. If Mr. Lee and his ilk succeed into overthrowing our constitution and making the US a theocracy then we have all lost America.

Many of his members cite their concern about President Obama’s policies and argue that he is taking away religious freedom, pointing to a recent administration policy requiring religious institutions to provide employee insurance covering contraceptives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-super-tuesday-approaches-gop-candidates-focus-on-evangelical-voters/2012/02/27/gIQAtp5wmR_story_1.html

Many of his members need to understand the difference of the constitutional rules for a church and a business. No one is forcing any church to operate a business and hire employees. If the church chooses to operate a business, then it obeys the same business rules as all other businesses.

If my pastor/church told such outrageous lies, then I would be looking for a new pastor/church.

None of them have any business in politics. Shut up or pay taxes!

I have said this time and time again. Any organization who has so much to say about how our government works needs to pay taxes... otherwise you have a situation that exists now.. representation without taxation which is not okay. Frankly church and government should never be uttered in the same sentence except in the famous words of Thomas Jefferson' " There shall be a wall of separation between church and state" and since he was one of the framers of the Constitution, we can only assume he knew what he was talking about.

None of them have any business in politics. Shut up or pay taxes! (newsblog903)

Are you referring to President Obama's recent video shoot announcing the group 'African-Americans for Obama' - and imploring African-Americans to get out the vote via their meetings 'in churches?'

Jesus is coming. Everybody look busy.

@Hope:

Thanks for my late morning chuckle!!!

LOL Joy. Don't you think it is time for this country to take a chill pill about religion ? It should be a sacred personal relationship / activity that is not used as a political weapon. But I'm just sayin' . . .

It's all cut from the same repressive, authoritarian, patriarchal bolt of cloth, y'all. We deal with these issues constantly in the Bible Belt but they weren't noticed in national politics until St. Ronald Reagan made his unholy bargain with the Conservative Christians to (temporarily) stem the loss of voters from the GOP.

Demographics have been against the Republicans for a loooong time now and if you happen to have the chance, compare 10 different backgrounds from 10 different speaking occasions among the GOP candidates and the President. You'll notice what I'm talking about: perhaps you'll see 1 or 2 token brown faces behind Romney, but the ones behind the other 3 are all pasty white. The ones behind the President are a cross-section of America.

" Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there. " ~ Bonnie Raitt, Singer/Songwriter

And I agree with you Carolina Lady. President Barack Obama reaches out to and relates to the widest range of Americans since John F. Kennedy. And he does it with such natural class and authentic soul. His legacy will be helping the world shift from managing corruption and death to cultivating sustainable commerce and life. In spite of all the cynicism, greed, back door dealings and flat out fraud in politics and commerce these days, I feel Hope42012 and for his reelection.

"Surely I come quickly!" - J. Christ

No wonder G*d let us invent Viagra.

Bloomberg - Oceans Acidifying Fastest in 300 Million Years

The Earth’s oceans may be acidifying faster than at any point during the last 300 million years due to industrial emissions, endangering marine life from oysters and reefs to sea-going salmon, researchers said...
“If industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about -- coral reefs, oysters, salmon,” Hoenisch said.

Exactly. Very well spoken.

Because people who are intelligent and curious see through their nonsense. Republicans succeed only when they can divide and conquer. Identifying "terrifying others" to focus hate upon is what they do. They've been doing it for decades.

The ignorant and narrow minded are perfect targets for these kinds of appeals. They're easily scared and can be convinced that "someone else" is responsible for their problems, and that those problems can be solved by removing (or at least minimizing the influence of) that " someone else."

Why MUST the GOP court people who are ignorant and narrow minded?

Because that is the only voting block they have.

'Republicans succeed only when they divide and conquer' (mpguy)

Let's take a look at some of the 'groups' highlighted on President Obama's official website alone - shall we?:

'African-Americans for Obama' (Incidentally, could one imagine the firestorm if, say, Romney put up a 'White Americans for Romney?' Could one imagine the charges of 'bigotry?')

'Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders for Obama'

'Jewish Americans for Obama'

'Latinos for Obama'

'LGBT Americans for Obama'

'People of Faith for Obama'

'Veterans and Military Families for Obama'

'Women for Obama'

'Young Americans for Obama'

President Obama's method of operation is to 'divide and conquer.' Division is a hallmark of the left; it's the only way that they can get elected...

Most people would read this list and conclude that the Obama campaign is actually working on uniting an eclectic assortment of people who otherwise might have nothing to do with one another . . . . the opposite of "divide and conquer."

As usual, you guys see everything Bass ackwards. Sane people can see who tries to divide the country and it's not Obama. I haven't seen him try to pump people up with hatred but I see it from the GOP every day.

Umm John every single POTUS who has ran for an election in modern history has formed their own version of those groups including McCain and Bush. By your own logic that would mean that McCain was doing the same thing. Or have you forgotten Hockey Moms for McCain? Beyond this a group announcing that it supports a candidate is not a group announcing division. I'm not even sure what type of prejudism it takes for you to conclude that if a gay person says 'I represent gays for Obama' that somehow means that they are trying to divide the nation.

Unless you think that recognizing and celebrating the diversities of Americans is somehow partisan? In which case I guess you'd be happier if we were all homogeneous? Just so you know if that ever actually happened we'd die out in a few generations....

John:

Republicans versus gays

Republicans versus ethnics

Republicans versus the poor

Republicans versus women

Republicans versus civil rights

Republicans versus separation of church and state

Republicans versus the 99%

Republicans versus equal opportunity

Republicans versus labor

Republicans versus Islam

Republicans versus Israel

Republicans versus other religions besides Christianity

Republicans versus certain sects of Christianity

Republicans versus the kinder sayings of Jesus

Republicans versus the middle class

Republicans versus seniors

Republicans versus schools

Republicans versus infrastructure

Republicans versus diversity

Republicans versus equal and civil rights

AND THE LIST GOES ON

Just last week in an address, President Obama highlighted the formation of 'African-Americans for Obama' and discussed the need for black citizens to mobilize - particularly in churches.

Let's think for a moment.

What would the outcry be if a GOP candidate made a statement about the creation of a group called, say, 'Caucasians for Santorum?' How would people - especially the left - react to that??

Why is this blatant appeal towards racism tolerated in Democratic circles?!?

That isn't racism John. Encouraging people to vote- seriously! Is this the best you can do? Pretty pathetic argument on your side especially when Reps. are getting away with total disrespect for the President.

Newsblog903,

That was an entertaining list.

Grossly incorrect - but entertaining nonetheless.

My list, of course, was real, factual - and explicitly noted on President Obama's re-election website.

The man is a divider along the lines of ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality - you name it....

Gee whiz, how I yearn for E Pluribus Unum ('from many - one'). You won't ever find that with THIS president or members of his political party.

'That isn't racism, John. Encouraging people to vote....' (newsblog)

Ok, newsblog - tell me with a straight face what would happen if a GOP candidate pushed for a group to be formed called 'Caucasians for (Republican candidate).'

Would you - and the leftist media - defend that as simply a candidate's 'encouragement' for a group of citizens 'to vote?'

Please....

Only in your world does appealing to minority groups indicate division John. Like I said I can't even begin to imagine what goes through your mind. So you think that no one is supposed to celebrate their cultural diversity? And that doing this is somehow to divert America? President Obama is encouraging black people to come out and vote for him. And guess what? The Republican candidates do the same. You're acting as if no Republican ever in the history of forever has reached out to a minority group and encouraged that minority group to get out the vote. And by the way last time I checked encouraging a minority to get out the vote doesn't suddenly or magically mean that you're not encouraging the majority to get out and vote. It simply means you're speaking to a particular group. The real question is why do you feel that addressing groups means that you are being divisive? Why do you insist that homogeneity is the only way to go? So in your world view encouraging black people to vote somehow automatically necessitates that we aren't encouraging white people to vote? The only person who is being 'divisive' on this issue is you.

For the record John that would be exactly what Obama is doing- getting everyone together and having them unite under one voice. You are the only person who thinks that reaching out to a group automatically segregates them. Acknowledging someone's difference =/= segregation based on differences.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/27/romney-courts-hispanic-voters/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorums-outreach-to-women-voters/2012/03/01/gIQAetjGkR_blog.html

http://womenforromney2012.wordpress.com/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/25/santorum-will-reach-out-to-minorities.html

Good grief these Republicans just love to divide and conquer. I mean here they are reaching out to minority groups and telling those groups to vote. And these minority groups form things like Blacks for Romney and Women for Romney and Hispanics for Santorum. That must mean that the candidate wants to divide America. I mean how else could you explain their desire to court such a group? They just want us all to be divided among our differences and not unite about anything!

I don't know, I think the list that John cites is pretty inclusive. I think the only thing that isn't there is Zombies for Obama. And we all know that only zombies can vote in Chicago, so there's not much traction to be gained by adding them to the list.

Really, though, I don't see how encouraging people to vote, especially if they belong to demographics with historically low voter turnout, is divisive. Unless this really means "sssshhhhh! No one tell the people of color to vote. Look what happened the last time they did." Besides, we already do have a Caucasians for (Republican candidate) group. It's called the Tea Party. Divisive? And what should we call the alienation of women that the GOP is spearheading. They are dividing me, John. Yes, sir, they are dividing me. Yep, through the GOP actions, I am being pulled right over to the box on the ballot sheet that says Straight-ticket Dem.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me that I still have yet to make my Obama reelection campaign donation. I'll go and do that right now.

Mouzer, there's a HUGE difference in reaching out to voters (as your links have highlighted) - and forming 'groups' explicitly under the banner of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc..

If, say, a group of blacks wants to form 'Blacks For Romney/Santorum/Gingrich,' have at it. You won't find the candidates using those absurd subheadings on any of the their websites (I've looked; ain't there) - because it's essentially the left that divides people into these kinds of absurd categories.

Again - and NOBODY has answered this question though I've posed it twice - how would the left react if a Republican candidate formed a 'Caucasians for (insert candidate's name here)?'

The existence of that appeal would deemed to be 'racist,' 'bigoted' - and keep the Rachel Maddows of the world clothed and fed for weeks. You know it - and I know it - and it's part of the hypocrisy of the left:

'African-Americans for Obama'...'good! positive! reaching out and encouraging citizens to vote!'

'Caucasians for Romney'....racist! bigoted!

I simply believe that we are all Americans - and the left, and their willing friends in the media, has tried to sub-categorize us and pit us against each other for decades. Obama has simply legitimized it on his website and in his addresses. Sad.

Sad no one here is agreeing with you John. No points for John! :(

@Johnlorican Why would the far right want unity? Isn't the anti-Christ supposed to unite us all? Wouldn't anyone that promotes nation/worldwide unity also be considered evil by Christians? There is no winning here. Even within the Christian faith you are divided on who follows His word the right way.

Even if 100% of the US were Christian, there would be debates about the evils of Catholics vs Protestants vs Mormon or Methodist vs Baptist, Evangelicals vs moderate believers etc...

You are all divided, and if there were no liberals in the US, we'd devolve into a nation full of churches and houses riddled with bullet holes, much like some of the middle-eastern nations we see on the news every day. Theocracy in any form is dangerous and has done wonders to set our species back thousands of years.

Mouzer, there's a HUGE difference in reaching out to voters (as your links have highlighted) - and forming 'groups' explicitly under the banner of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc..

But that is what they are doing John. They are forming Hispanics for Rick Santorum. Blacks for Romney. Women for Romney. Every single President and Presidential candidate does this. They do it in order to reach out to voters.

I simply believe that we are all Americans - and the left, and their willing friends in the media, has tried to sub-categorize us and pit us against each other for decades. Obama has simply legitimized it on his website and in his addresses. Sad.

We are all Americans which is why we have to celebrate our diversity. What you want us to do is shut up and never mention the fact that there are blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc. You don't want us to acknowledge that people look at the world through different lenses. You don't want us to talk about the fact that what is racism to you may not be racism to someone else. You want us all to shut up and accept that one world view is the correct world view and all others are not to be talked about: suburban or rural straight white Christian male. That is the only world view you want acknowledged and to acknowledge anything else you want it to be labeled divisive and offensive. It's like saying that anyone who questions the Bible must automatically not be a Christian. Homogeneity is what kills us as a species, not diversity. The only way you can celebrate what it truly means to be American is to celebrate the differences in us all. No one on the left feels pitted against minorities or majorities- that is only something that exists on the right and I do not know why. For some reason people on the right feel that if you acknowledge different perspectives that somehow automatically negates the previous perspective. That somehow if everyone doesn't accept one universal world view then that automatically means we're fighting or divided. This is only believed on the right. It is not believed on the left. You are the only one in the room who believes that if a candidate encourages black people to vote for him that this somehow means that he does not want white people to vote for him.

Again - and NOBODY has answered this question though I've posed it twice - how would the left react if a Republican candidate formed a 'Caucasians for (insert candidate's name here)?'

No I didn't address this because it's silly. You say this as though white people are constantly discriminated against. As if no candidate in the history of forever has ever not reached out to white people. White people represent the majority and because of that they don't get their own special minority group. You then claim that it's hypocritical that whites aren't treated like minorities and aren't allowed to form their own group. Which a. isn't true- whites are more than welcome to do that, but more importantly b. again reiterates this idea that somehow by encouraging blacks to form their own group it somehow means that now white people have lost something. That now white people are being ignored or not being encouraged. It's simply not true. Additionally since whites are not a minority they wouldn't be forming a minority group in the first place.

You are also making a silly and quite honestly assinine assumption. You're assuming that because Barack Obama chooses to highlight the minority groups on his website and that other candidates do not that a. this implies collaboration (which it does not) and that b. this obviously means that Obama is seeking to divide us. Again why you think that someone reaching out to minorities is divisive is beyond me. But you seem to believe that a candidate celebrating the fact that there are groups out there that have formed to support the candidate based on their differences now, again, means that white people are being pushed aside. Only you seem to be taking this away.

Really, though, I don't see how encouraging people to vote, especially if they belong to demographics with historically low voter turnout, is divisive.

That's pretty much it. John says that by reaching out to minorities Obama is dividing us and that this is something the left does. Well I guess that's right. The left does reach out to minorities instead of ignoring them and does encourage minorities to vote and make their voices heard. The left does encourage minorities to be treated as equal citizens and to participate in our democracy. Silly me- I was trying to imply that this is something that Republicans and the right like to do, but you know what if John wants to insist that the right doesn't do this then fine by me. So from hence forth let it be known that John does not believe that minority organizations should be reached out to by politicians and acknowledged or allowed to coalesce over a candidate whom they agree with because to do so means that we're being divided as a nation.

Just one more thing: how is it that someone complaining about divisions among Americans via outreach groups and PBO then go on to talk about hypocrisy? Just as a news flash John- when you sit there and attack liberals as being hypocrites and being liars and being this or that YOU are engaging in divisive politics. Which really means you don't believe the things you say. Because you are encouraging that we be pitted against each other BY trying to attack liberals.

The right wing wants to "take our country back" ...............all the way back to the 30s and 40s, before the Equal rights amendment, etc. They see their country turning more and more minorities, and they cannot handle the fact that our country is having more minorities than ever before. its a global world, allright. And we are never going to be the "white men who run everything" again. Admit it, that's what all those people yelling "we want our country back!" are saying.

johnlorican ... Organizing groups of supporters to support a candidate doesn't indicate that the candidate is trying to set one group against another. The essence of "divide and conquer" is catering to the fears and prejudices of certain groups by demonizing others in order to scare one or more groups of people into voting for that person or party.

Can you give us some examples of Obama demonizing certain groups? I'm not talking about just disagreeing with them, or pointing out certain actions by those groups that haven't served the country well (such as those who sold toxic financial derivatives). I'm talking about stirring up fear and hatred of those people.

If so, you're seeing something few of the rest of us see.

It's tough to know where to begin with all of this....

"They are forming Hispanics for Rick Santorum. Blacks for Romney. Women for Romney. Every single President and Presidential candidate does this. They do it in order to reach out to voters." (Mouzer)

Hogwash. Did you ever hear of 'Women for Reagan?...'Latinos for Reagan?'....or any other 'group' for Reagan? Of course not - because there was none. The ONLY group anyone ever heard were the 'Reagan Democrats' - a media creation to define the Democrats that crossed over to vote Republican in 1980/1984....and Reagan carried 49 states by appealing to a clearly defined worldview (everyone KNEW where he stood) and the greatness of America and its citizens - and not trying to cater to ridiculous subdivided groups as defined by the left.

'Can you give us some examples of Obama demonizing certain groups?' (mpguy)

He, like his party, demonizes the wealthy, consistently talking about how they aren't paying their 'fair share' in taxes. Of course, after demonizing them, he holds fundraisers to the tune of multiple thousands of dollars per plate ($35,000 per plate at a New York fundraiser alone last night (sheesh!); the Dems are sure the 'party of the people' - right?).

The wealthy - overwhelmingly - pay the lion share of taxes in this country, while 47% of the country pays ZERO federal taxes. Nothing. Nada. Meanwhile, the Democrats play this class warfare game looking for votes from people who want to decide how OTHER people should pay taxes for services that should cater to them. Beyond perverse.

How many times did the left call the 'TEA Party' racists? President Obama didn't do that - but members of his party, both in the Senate and in the House used that term. A heinous description.

"John says that by reaching out to minorities Obama is dividing us and that this is something the left does." (Mouzer)

Bingo - because the left VIEWS people in categorical minorities - and forever as victims.

I look at people as Americans; leftists look at people always as part of a 'subdivided group.'

When Glenn Beck held his Washington, D.C. rally in August, 2010, there happened to be many citizens in the crowd who were black. Reporters, completely mired in left-wing ideology, went up to several of the black citizens in the audience and asked them questions to the tune of, 'Why are you here? Do you feel comfortable here? Do you feel safe amidst these white people?" etc.

The interviewees told them they were there - because they were Americans not 'black Americans, African-Americans, minority Americans' - but simply Americans...and they were there to pray for their country, to rub shoulders with other like-minded Americans, to thank God that they were born in this country, and to see what they could do try and 'righten the ship' of a country that financially was (and still is) going down the tubes.

'No I didn't address this because it's silly. You say this as though white people are constantly discriminated against. As if no candidate in the history of forever has ever not reached out to white people. White people represent the majority and because of that they don't get their own I' special minority group.' (Mouzer)

I, of course, never said or implied that 'white people were discriminated against' by my comments That's how the left thinks; they put people into groups - and then view them as potential 'victims of discrimination.' I merely said it was monstrously absurd and hypocritical that 'African-Americans for Obama' is somehow a good, 'progressive' entity - but 'Caucasians for Romney' would be considered a racist and bigoted group by the left. It defies common sense.

Like I said, the left views people in terms of groups - whether as 'majorities' or 'minorities,' forever separating by race, by gender, by sexual choices and interests - and on and on and on....

Complete and utter nonsense.

The subdivisions never end - and, sadly, they're enshrined on our current president's website. Like I said: a divider.....

Good night.

Again, you failed to give a single example of Obama demonizing various groups.

He's not demonizing the rich when he points out they benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts, or that their tax rates are lower than they were under Reagan. Or that those in the financial industry received bonuses that are far in excess of what most people make in ten years, if not a lifetime. He's stating well-documented facts. Since he helped bail out "the rich" in 2009, and his administration has gone out of its way to pursue policies that benefit those in upper income brackets, he's sure got a funny way of making them the object of hatred and fear.

And, even if he were doing that (which he isn't), I think the upper 5-10% have more than enough power and resources to fight back. The essence of what Republicans do is finding groups that are powerless and lacking in resources--so that they can't fight back. That's bullying, and it's what Republicans do.

You're lack of good examples make the case that several of us have advanced in this thread. Good night to you, too.

When you open a bag of Skittles, you can sort the various flavors into different piles, but that's you doing the sorting.

Besides, "Caucasians for Santorum" would be redundant. Kind of like "Rich people for Romney." (and never would a capital "S" be so important.)

Graham and Nickless (and others) are cut from the same cloth. The FUD factor is alive and well, and currently dominates the discussion.

I guess we live in different universes.

Like I said, President Obama, and his political party, indeed, demonize those with means - (though those with means pay virtually ALL the taxes in this country - and clearly are the ones who show up at his thousand dollars-a-plate fundraisers) - and have helped to foster the atmosphere where those who aren't wealthy view the wealthy as greedy and undeserved of what they've earned.

Just recently on the Senate floor, Bernie Sanders said, 'The top 1% in this country of all income earners in the United States made 23 1/2% of all income. Their greed has no end.'

If that's not demonization, I don't know what is....

Meanwhile, a strong percentage of this country receives 'free' schooling, 'free' housing, 'free' food (Newt Gingrich's term 'food stamp president' is not without merit since that number has now risen to over 45 million participants) - and 'free' healthcare. For years, the government has been in the business of paying people to stay poor.

I live in the St. Louis area - and for virtually all of the 51 years of my life, the St. Louis public school system has been a disaster. A complete disaster. Yet, as a state resident, part of my taxes has to go to keep that dysfunctional government run enterprise going. The dropout rate is huge, there are never any merit scholars, the children come out with the equivalent of an 8th grade education - and, of course, everyone in that insane system are Democrats; they've chased away all of the conservatives.

Simply crazy.

Did you ever hear of 'Women for Reagan?...'Latinos for Reagan?'....or any other 'group' for Reagan? Of course not - because there was none.

Bingo. Why wasn't there any? Anyone have a good answer for that? I'll admit that I am not as well versed on politics as most folks on here, so while someone else can do a much better job at providing links, citations, facts, figures, stats, etc, that would help explain why these groups did not support Pres. Reagan and why you do not see a balance of these groups supporting GOP candidates now, I'll stick to shooting from the hip and present my meager, emotionally filled hypothesis.

Here goes. Maybe we don't see any of these groups for Reagan or for the, how was it put up there, insert Republican candidate (?) is because they simply do no support these candidates. It's not rocket science. And trust me, I've seen papers from rocket scientists and they take much more concentration than commenting on a political blog. Why do they not support these candidates? Well, maybe because they feel that these candidates are not the best candidates to hold the highest office in this country. Maybe they are happy with the work that President Obama is doing and want to see him get reelected. And you know what is so great about that? IT IS THEIR CHOICE AND THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO. It is their right to support and discuss and encourage others to consider voting for any candidate they choose. And if this means supporting the Democratic candidate, then so be it. Another thing that dear John fails to realize is that not every African American, every Latino, every LGBT person, every woman subscribes or is a member of the political action groups on that website. And why is that? Because we all have the right to join whatever the hell group we decide to join. (I'm still holding out for the Chicago Chapter of Zombies for Obama, BTW). I am a woman who will be voting for the President, but I do not contribute to Women for Obama. But now that this group has been brought to my attention, I think I just might.

There is no law that states there should be equal representation by groups who self assemble and self organize for each and every political candidate. That's the whole point of elections--someone has to lose, which means there is no balance of support. Do you want the Supreme Court deciding each election. Good God, look what happened last time. Then again, maybe there should be a requirement that for each group supporting one candidate (figuratively and monetarily, BTW), there should be an equal group supporting the opposite candidate. If we did this, maybe the balance of money would actually balance out, too. Maybe people like Buddy Roemer would have half a chance. Sour Grapes.

Hogwash. Did you ever hear of 'Women for Reagan?...'Latinos for Reagan?'....or any other 'group' for Reagan? Of course not - because there was none. The ONLY group anyone ever heard were the 'Reagan Democrats' - a media creation to define the Democrats that crossed over to vote Republican in 1980/1984....and Reagan carried 49 states by appealing to a clearly defined worldview (everyone KNEW where he stood) and the greatness of America and its citizens - and not trying to cater to ridiculous subdivided groups as defined by the left.

This is not true John. Every politician- regardless of party affiliation- has ran by appealing to different groups of voters. I just want to point out a couple of things. First, Reagan hasn't been in office for years and the interwebs can only be used to debunk things for which the internet existed around. Anything beyond that is entirely based on whether or not people decided to upload it. So I may not in fact be able to debunk it w/ Reagan because you picking a candidate that is from 30 years ago. Which leads me to my second contention. Second, Reagan is far from the last person to run for office for the Republican Party ticket. Why not just look at what all the other Republicans are doing? You are making the claim that only Democrats do this, that only liberals do this. Yet here is a situation where all you have to do is a simple search to see if you can find groups surrounding the candidate that are 'divisive' groups as you call it (you're still going to have to explain how and why it is that a group recognizing itself is 'divisive' and a candidate reaching out to them to vote is 'pitting us against ourselves'). Thirdly, you have already stated that you do not have a problem w/ a candidate reaching out to minority voters. You have also already stated that you have no problems w/ minorities forming groups like Hispanics for Santorum. So what is your complaint? That Obama had the audacity to list these groups on his website and the other candidates are too stupid or lazy to do the same? Honestly your complaint here doesn't even make sense. If you don't see it as divisive for a presidential candidate to reach out to minorities and you don't see it as divisive for minorities to form their own 'We're for X' group then why do you have a problem w/ Obama featuring it on his website?

Let's look at stickers and t-shirts that you could've purchased for the McCain/Palin campaign that would've given money directly to the candidate that would, by your criteria, be divisive, shall we?

http://www.zazzle.com/smart_strong_sexy_women_vote_mccain_palin_08_tshirt-235456576380750470

http://www.zazzle.com/thinking_women_for_mccain_and_palin_customized_tshirt-235014894002057512

http://www.adrants.com/subject/spoofs/index.php?page=13

http://www.loriferber.com/women-for-mccain-campaign-sticker.html

http://www.stickershoppe.com/CTGY/john-mcCain

I want you to particularly look through these stickers, hats, posters, and pins. They have everything from Arab Americans for McCain to Business Leaders for McCain to Hispanics for McCain to Women for McCain

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Women-for-McCainPalin/44534049120

http://www.lvrj.com/news/28385094.html

http://www.tennrebgirl.com/cgi-bin/display_Items.asp?Cat=18&Sub=218&page=8

Oh look that website actually DOES show Women for Reagan/Bush

http://www.campaignbuttons-etc.com/dole1.htm

Here are some campaign buttons for Dole. Scroll to the bottom and look there it is: Women for Dole

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-02/news/30469731_1_herman-cain-cain-train-gloria-cain

And let's not forget when Herman Cain got into trouble he started his own group in order to get support

OK so I think I've listed enough. The point here being, again, that this is NOT a left or right, Democrat or Republican issue. In order to get elected to office you must get votes. The more votes you have the more likely you are to win. So it's in everyone's interest who is running for office to gather votes from as many people as they can. The result? Candidates reach out to minorities and try to encourage those minorities to go vote. There are tons and tons of groups out there who have been formed specifically around what they have in common: everything from certain issues they hold important to their ethnicity to their age to their gender to their sexuality. Candidates choose which groups they'd like to reach out to and campaign specifically at these people. They tell them 'here's what I'm going to do for you.' It's a common tactic. This is electioneering 101. You have taken one of the least controversial things in politics and made it controversial. And again only you seem to know why.

He, like his party, demonizes the wealthy, consistently talking about how they aren't paying their 'fair share' in taxes. Of course, after demonizing them, he holds fundraisers to the tune of multiple thousands of dollars per plate ($35,000 per plate at a New York fundraiser alone last night (sheesh!); the Dems are sure the 'party of the people' - right?).

The wealthy - overwhelmingly - pay the lion share of taxes in this country, while 47% of the country pays ZERO federal taxes. Nothing. Nada. Meanwhile, the Democrats play this class warfare game looking for votes from people who want to decide how OTHER people should pay taxes for services that should cater to them. Beyond perverse.

Obama is the wealthy. How exactly is it that you can go from calling Obama a rich snob and liberals elitists while then simultaneously saying that the left demonize the wealthy? Either we are the wealthy or we are not the wealthy. And if we are the wealthy then why would we demonize ourselves? 1% of Americans hold 80% of the wealth in this country and yet they only pay 50% of taxes. If they would move to paying, say, 70% of taxes then you wouldn't hear the left complaining about it. Here is what you need to know about economics- this is economics 101. Tax cuts are not free. Whenever you cut taxes it costs money and you have to find a way to pay for that money. You can either a. cut services that people need or b. you can raise taxes on those who don't belong to the group whose taxes you've cut. If you cut taxes from the highest percentage of income earners then that means you have to raise taxes on the lowest percentage of income earners OR cut the lowest percentage of income earner's services. Since they are more likely to use services from the government that means dramatically cutting in to their resources. Democrats believe it is wrong to do this UNLESS you have to do this. The 1% aren't struggling. They don't struggle to pay bills or to feed themselves or to meet their basic needs. However the bottom 20% do. If you lower taxes on the 1% then you will raise taxes on the bottom 20%. So Democrats conclude that we must raise taxes on the upper 1% in order to keep the burden from shifting to the bottom 20%. And that is how Democrats come to the conclusion of 'the 1% need to pay their fair share.' Obama is included in that. Rachel Maddow is included in that. Everyone who belongs to the 1% is included in that. You have already acknowledged that if the taxes aren't raised on a group individually that said group will not pay those taxes. So you already have admitted to agreeing w/ this logic. How, then, is this demonizing the wealthy? Democrats don't call the wealthy lazy or mean or evil. Democrats don't call the wealthy bad people. But Democrats do say that the tax policy is horribly unfair and that it needs to be balanced out. Whereas Republicans call the poor lazy and stupid. Republicans call the poor bad people. How do you conclude that what Democrats are doing is demonization, but what Republicans are doing is not?

How many times did the left call the 'TEA Party' racists? President Obama didn't do that - but members of his party, both in the Senate and in the House used that term. A heinous description.

And how many times did the right call OWS lazy and a bunch of barbarians and rapists and thugs and smelly hippies and criminals? What is your point? BTW the only reason why the Tea Party got called names was for making signs like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html

Are all Republicans racist? No. But when you allow people like this to show up at your group you are going to get called out for it. We are known by the worst among us. If you don't want to be associated w/ those people then do not allow them at your rallies. The political right has always had a problem w/ the KKK and the Nazi Party and all of these groups attempting to hijack there rallies. It's just a phenomenon that the right, unfortunately, has to deal w/. In the case of the left we have the anarchists who are just as bad if not worse. Their ideology probably isn't as harmful as the KKK or the neo-nazi's, but the anarchists almost always try to start riots and fights whenever they show up at liberal or Democratic events. So it's our job, as Democrats and as liberal activists, to be on the look out for them and when they show up to try to get them to leave or to have them escorted off the premise or away from the protest by police. It sucks and it's not fair, but again we are known by the worst among us when it comes to media representation. And the second you get negative representation like that it completely destroys anything your movement might otherwise stand for. One thing though: if the right had came out and apologized for those Tea Partiers. Had the right came out and said 'this is not what we're about this is not who we are we don't condone this' then more than likely people would've stopped making the association. However Fox News kept rallying people up and encouraging them to ignore the negative association. And because of that the Tea Party will forever be marred by such imagery. That, unfortunately, is something the Tea Party brought upon itself by not addressing the issue adequately and maturely.

Bingo - because the left VIEWS people in categorical minorities - and forever as victims.

I look at people as Americans; leftists look at people always as part of a 'subdivided group.'

Ok say this w/ me. Acknowledging disparities among groups =/= encouraging disparities among groups. Like I said in your world you want everyone to shut up about anything that might be unfair to them and to play by the rules you've given. Straight, white, Christian, rural male is the playbook. If people don't like that tough @!$%#. This isn't how the rest of the world thinks. Black people are discriminated against, as an example, and they have a right to voice their concerns and to have those concerns listened to. You, on the other hand, get offended whenever this happens and don't want them to be acknowledged or their problems acknowledged. The left doesn't create a state of victimhood. People who persecute the poor or gays or blacks or Hispanics or whatever it may be are the people who make them feel like victims. You confuse the fact that the left doesn't ignore injustic w/ the creation of this injustice to begin w/. And if you had it your way the injustice would go on w/o anyone ever standing up and saying 'no.'

When Glenn Beck held his Washington, D.C. rally in August, 2010, there happened to be many citizens in the crowd who were black. Reporters, completely mired in left-wing ideology, went up to several of the black citizens in the audience and asked them questions to the tune of, 'Why are you here? Do you feel comfortable here? Do you feel safe amidst these white people?" etc.

The interviewees told them they were there - because they were Americans not 'black Americans, African-Americans, minority Americans' - but simply Americans...and they were there to pray for their country, to rub shoulders with other like-minded Americans, to thank God that they were born in this country, and to see what they could do try and 'righten the ship' of a country that financially was (and still is) going down the tubes.

Do you have evidence of this? I never saw this at the rally. I do remember media personalities coming out and giving interviews and what I distinctly remember was that no one from the Tea Party would comment to the media. We had to work our way through and try to get people to trust us long enough to talk to us. What we found were that most people were there to get whatever they wanted out of the rally which is a phenomenon inherent w/ Beck. He says so many jumbled statements that if you listen to him from an outsider perspective he sounds like a raving lunatic. But people in the crowd made it very clear that they shut out the things he said that they didn't care about or understand and that they paid attention to the things that he said that touched their hearts. Like, for instance, he talked about God and family and the importance of prayer which got a lot of support from the crowd. I only ever recall seeing a handful of reporters who were allowed to get near the crowd because the second people said 'I'm w/ the media' the crowd turned away and refused to give interviews. Please show me your documented evidence that this happened.

I, of course, never said or implied that 'white people were discriminated against' by my comments That's how the left thinks; they put people into groups - and then view them as potential 'victims of discrimination.' I merely said it was monstrously absurd and hypocritical that 'African-Americans for Obama' is somehow a good, 'progressive' entity - but 'Caucasians for Romney' would be considered a racist and bigoted group by the left. It defies common sense.

There is no such thing as common sense. To claim commons sense is a fallacy. Please research logic and reasoning before throwing terms out like that. Otherwise I'm going to say 'common sense should tell you that when you whine about white people not getting to be part of a group that black people get to be part of, it sounds racist.' And we wouldn't want that, now would we?

For the record no one put these people in to groups. These people self-identify as belonging to a group and then they demanded to be recognized as such. By denying them their own recognition you are the one making them into victims.

Like I said, the left views people in terms of groups - whether as 'majorities' or 'minorities,' forever separating by race, by gender, by sexual choices and interests - and on and on and on....

And again I will point out the utter hypocrisy here. You say that the left divides people in groups all the while not realizing that by saying 'the left' you are dividing people into groups. You complain that the left attacks people all the while ignoring the fact that when you say this you are attacking people. Seriously can you not see this? You divide people into left and right, Republican and Democrat. You've also admitted that you have no problem w/ minority groups dividing themselves up as minorities and you've also admitted that you have no problem w/ candidates reaching out to those divided groups. So you've already admitted that you also divide people up as African-American, etc. And you prove this by your ridiculous story about the Glenn Beck rally. The fact that you had to explain that they were African-American shows in and of itself that you divided these people in your mind. It also shows that you assume that when a reporter asks someone 'are you comfortable here' they're immediately implying race. You've also shown that you have no problem discriminating against the left or demonizing the left. Yet you complain that the left are the ones who do the discrimination and demonizing. Can you seriously not see your own hypocrisy?

Like I said, President Obama, and his political party, indeed, demonize those with means - (though those with means pay virtually ALL the taxes in this country - and clearly are the ones who show up at his thousand dollars-a-plate fundraisers) - and have helped to foster the atmosphere where those who aren't wealthy view the wealthy as greedy and undeserved of what they've earned.

No one said that those who are wealthy do not deserve their wealth. In fact when you attacked Maddow for her wealth you had a plethora of liberals attack you for going after her wealth. Again you do not seem to be aware of all the contradictions w/in your own thinking. You do realize that's a sign of schizophrenia or dementia, correct? I'm not saying that to be rude, but it's just concerning. There's a lot of this going around by a handful of right-wingers and I have to say a 'handful' because it's not every person who is conservative or libertarian or Republican. It's just a small group. The fact that you can't see the contradictions is scary quite honestly. Liberals want people to be wealthy and liberals do not think that if you are wealthy you are inherently greedy. In fact the whole point of the OWS protests has been that wealth =/= greed. You can become wealthy w/o kicking people out of their homes or w/o stealing from people or w/o charging people a gagillion dollars in fines and fees that you never told them you were going to charge them. You can become wealthy through hard work instead of siphoning resources from people and swindling them. Those who do such practices need to be in jail for breaking the law just like you or I or anyone who wasn't wealthy would be jailed for. The complaint that the left gives is that once someone is wealthy they can commit crimes and not pay penalties for it. The left never criticizes people who become wealthy w/o violating the law.

I'd also like to point out another point of contradiction here: you are classifying people as wealthy and then you are pitting those people against everyone else. Yet you complain that it's the left that does this? Seriously?

Just recently on the Senate floor, Bernie Sanders said, 'The top 1% in this country of all income earners in the United States made 23 1/2% of all income. Their greed has no end.'

If that's not demonization, I don't know what is....

Correct- they are earning that money because of an unfair balance in the tax code. Fix the tax code and the greed stops.

Meanwhile, a strong percentage of this country receives 'free' schooling, 'free' housing, 'free' food (Newt Gingrich's term 'food stamp president' is not without merit since that number has now risen to over 45 million participants) - and 'free' healthcare. For years, the government has been in the business of paying people to stay poor.

Honestly who the hell have you ever met that says they would love to go to work if government would just stop offering them a paycheck? Seriously? This has to be the most ridiculous line ever. People are on food stamps and unemployment because they have lost their jobs. You complained in another post about how Obama is the worst economic president ever. You even contradict yourself w/in this post by stating that Obama is the food stamp president. Now honestly John how can these two things co-exist? Either A. Obama is such an incompetent president that so many people are out of the job that they MUST rely on government due to Obama's failings or B. people are lazy and do not want to get jobs which is why you cannot blame Obama for how many people are on unemployment and food stamps. Which one is it?

I also love the fact that even though everyone pays taxes and thereby pays for the services they receive and even though these services have been provided to the public as the result of our legislature which passed these laws into effect constitutionally and ethically- you still want to say that it's 'free.' By this very same logic anyone who buys anything w/ a tax cut is also getting something for 'free.' Just so ya know. Again another contradiction.

I live in the St. Louis area - and for virtually all of the 51 years of my life, the St. Louis public school system has been a disaster. A complete disaster. Yet, as a state resident, part of my taxes has to go to keep that dysfunctional government run enterprise going. The dropout rate is huge, there are never any merit scholars, the children come out with the equivalent of an 8th grade education - and, of course, everyone in that insane system are Democrats; they've chased away all of the conservatives.

Well this brings up a good point. Did you know that your state does not have to, by law, provide public schooling? Your state actually could close down every single one of it's public schools if it wanted to. Your state also could privatize every single one of it's schools if it wanted to. Why aren't you demanding this of your state legislature or your state governor? I mean if you hate the system so much why aren't you getting off your lazy arse, walking down to townhall, and demanding that they get rid of these public services? They don't have to provide them so why do they?

Sorry I was being a little bit sarcastic. My point about the public schools comment is that your state only has to participate in public schooling so long as your state takes money from the federal government. All your state has to do is stop taking money from the federal government and then it won't have to provide those services. The majority of debt we hold in this country is money the federal government had to pay out to the states in order to uphold public services that had been promised. If your state were to stop providing those services it would do WONDERS for the national debt and deficit. This is especially true in your state of Missouri in which the majority of money given by the federal government is never paid back by the state. So go down town and tell your state congress 'no more federal funding!' Tell your governor that you want him to stop w/ all this federal nonsense. You are the one through which democracy flows through- that's the great thing about living in this country. You don't like public schools? Then get down to the state house and tell them that you don't like the schools. Tell them no federal funding. Purchase a website, start a Facebook page, and start rallying people in Missouri to get rid of the federal funding. Only you can do this for your state so why aren't you doing it if your state's situation is so dire? That was what I was getting at w/ the 'lazy arse' comment. But I realized after posing that you couldn't tell the humor w/ which I was saying it....so I will redact that portion of my statement and apologize. But the broader point still stands: if you want to change your state's situation then do it. No one is stopping you. So why aren't you?

Mouzer, I appreciate your research and comments. Seriously, I do. I disagree with many of your contentions - but I appreciate your research.

I'm working today - so I don't have the time (nor want to take an hour or so of my life) to answer most of your points.

I chose Ronald Reagan because I believe him to be the most recent - and best - standard of what I'm talking about. I'm 51 - and voted for Reagan both times (the first time grudgingly because at the time, I was somewhat liberal - but I was so dissappointed in Jimmy Carter that there was no way I was going to vote for him). 1980 was the first election in which I was old enough to vote.

My point is that I'm old enough to remember the signs, buttons, etc. of that era. I even have unused bumper stickers of the candidates....and NOWHERE did one see '(insert group) for Reagan' - because people didn't think in those terms. Reagan appealed to people as Americans - not defined groups of Americans separated by race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. I don't think in those terms - but the left ALWAYS thinks in those terms.

Sadly, as you highlighted in some of your 2008 links, Republicans have begun to adopt some of those ways....and, not suprisingly - they lost! No conservative wants to vote for 'Republican-lite.' Most of us held our noses when we voted for McCain; we loved Sarah - but McCain was the weak piece that came with it.

Heretofore, Romney/Santorum/Gingrich have resisted the groupthink on their websites....I hope it stays that way.

Honestly who the hell have you ever met that says they would love to go to work if government would just stop offering them a paycheck? Seriously? This has to be the most ridiculous line ever. People are on food stamps and unemployment because they have lost their jobs.

Mouzer, there are generations of people who have lived on government subsidy. I know a CFO for a major company in St. Louis who has had employees whose existence was to do something to themselves so that they could get on disability insurance for the rest of their lives -and never have to go to work again. They don't want to work.

There are thousands, if not millions, of people who receive food stamps (in actuality, a card that one swipes) and sell the card for money at a reduced rate so that they can buy whatever they want. It's nothing but a racket.

In California, once the 'golden state' and a state where everybody, ideally, wanted to live, has become the premier welfare state due to leftist policies. The state is broke and receives millions from the federal government everyday. Many companies can't find employees in California who want to work for, say, $9-12 an hour - because 'unemployment checks' people receive rival that hourly amount. Why go to work when the state will pay you a comparable amount just to sit on your rear?!?

My point is that I'm old enough to remember the signs, buttons, etc. of that era. I even have unused bumper stickers of the candidates....and NOWHERE did one see '(insert group) for Reagan' - because people didn't think in those terms. Reagan appealed to people as Americans - not defined groups of Americans separated by race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. I don't think in those terms - but the left ALWAYS thinks in those terms.

But that isn't true John. They did do this and not only did they do this, but the memorabilia now sells for as high as $100 on ebay as I showed you. There were Women for Reagan, Businesses for Reagan, Catholics for Reagan, and the list goes on. This is like saying Jews for Jesus is trying to divide Jews against Christians when that's the exact OPPOSITE of what the group intends to do. Every modern politician has done this: it is NOT a Democrat or Republican thing. Reagan did it, the Bush's did it, Nixon did it. All of them did it. And it's not just Presidential candidates. Your senators do it, your house representatives do it, your state representatives- all of them do this. It's electioneering 101. Again you've taken something that is a non-issue and made it into an issue. And no Reagan did not appeal to all groups. Reagan attacked people based on their sexual orientation and on their income and on their religion. Reagan also attacked people based on their political affiliation. Reagan went out and coined the term 'welfare queens' and everything else. Reagan attacked people for who they were and divided Americans- by the standard you're setting, anyways- based on what he felt was necessary to divide. You have over-nostalgized your past and are using that as if it's historic evidence and it's not. I have shown you the historic evidence. Reagan did it just like everyone else.

Mouzer, there are generations of people who have lived on government subsidy. I know a CFO for a major company in St. Louis who has had employees whose existence was to do something to themselves so that they could get on disability insurance for the rest of their lives -and never have to go to work again. They don't want to work.

Prolonged unemployment and systemic unemployment aren't created by the government. They are created by the socio-economic situations in which people live in. If you actually know of someone who has purposely put themselves into disability then guess what? You have just openly admitted to committing a federal crime. You know of a person who is on unemployment who is not supposed to be and you are openly admitting that you did not report it to the police. This is against federal law and faces a minimum of 5 year prison sentence. If you know someone who is using unemployment who is not supposed to be then you have a legal obligation to call someone. All you've just done is openly admitted that you are complacent in the law breaking. That's not the government's fault- that's because you aren't doing your civic duty as a citizen and are apparently flaunting the fact that you are in violation of federal and local law online.

There are thousands, if not millions, of people who receive food stamps (in actuality, a card that one swipes) and sell the card for money at a reduced rate so that they can buy whatever they want. It's nothing but a racket.

Provide documented evidence that this happens. Again if you know of this happening this is a violation of federal law. If you see it being committed and you do NOT report it to the police YOU are complacent in the law breaking.

In California, once the 'golden state' and a state where everybody, ideally, wanted to live, has become the premier welfare state due to leftist policies. The state is broke and receives millions from the federal government everyday. Many companies can't find employees in California who want to work for, say, $9-12 an hour - because 'unemployment checks' people receive rival that hourly amount. Why go to work when the state will pay you a comparable amount just to sit on your rear?!?

Actually that is not true. The most you can get in unemployment is $1,200 dollars a month and that's if you are married and have children. A single person who is on unemployment cannot draw more than $800 dollars a month in money. $1,200/mo would be minimum wage. $12/hr is well ABOVE what that amount would be. In fact it's almost twice as much. So by your logic this also fails to live up to your stated consequence. Additionally in order to be on unemployment in the state of California you have to show that you are actively looking for employment. If you do not show that you are actively looking for employment- which means you have to document it to the social security office- then they automatically cut you off from you unemployment benefits. You must check in w/ your social worker every other week and you must show that you have gotten call backs and interviews and have dropped resumes off. Failure to comply w/ this gets your benefits revoked. Additionally if someone finds out that you are maliciously abusing the system you can face up to 20 years in prison. In total welfare fraud amounts to about 2%. It is not a rampant problem and often times it's people like you who willingly don't report it to the police that perpetuate the problem. That's not because the program has failed. Lastly there is no documented evidence that the existence of welfare keeps people from working. You cannot just say 'why would someone work when they could get a check from the government'. That is what I like to call surface logic. You aren't basing it in fact or coherency: it only makes sense so long as you don't attempt to analyze the statement beyond the surface.

People must apply for welfare benefits and be denied. More people are denied welfare- as a percentage of applicants- than the percentage of fraud committed on welfare. Did you know that? Additionally if a federal program created this problem this would also mean that a state or local program would create the same problem AND a program that was ran privately. So what you're really arguing is that no assistance should be given out to anyone. That no charity should exist. More than likely you don't mean to say this and yet this is what your logic leads us to conclude (hence why I call it surface logic).

People are not forced on welfare. People have to demonstrate that they still have an active need in order to stay on welfare. People can have welfare taken from them at any time. People also do not get a lot of money on welfare. People do not get health insurance or have health coverage on welfare. People also do not get to pay for their utilities using welfare nor do they get to pay for perks using welfare. Because of this most people do not want to receive welfare over a paycheck. 75% of those who are on food stamps work at least one full time job w/ about a quarter working at least 2 jobs. The remaining 25% who don't work full time? Almost all of those individuals are either senior citizens or disabled persons.

Sorry, but the idea that there are a bunch of people sucking back 40's and not working who're getting government checks just isn't true. And if it is true then you may want to take a page out of the Real Life Superheroes book and start turning people in who are on welfare and are abusing the system. Doing so would fix the problem.

Here again is what I don't understand. The majority of money spent by our federal government is to support the states. Most of that money doesn't have to be spent. If you want to cut down on spending why not demand that your state stop taking the federal money? You don't have to have public schools funded by the federal government or public roads. The majority of EPA regulations don't have to be adhered to. Hell did you know that your state doesn't even have to keep the drinking age at 21? Or the smoking age at 18? Yes that's right. If your state wanted to it could drop the drinking age entirely or lower it to 18. Your state could do the same w/ smoking and porn. Your state doesn't do this because it knows it cannot fund all the services it needs to fund w/o the federal government's help. But if you really and truly believe that these programs by the federal government are a waste then why not start where you have the most impact? At your state's level?

http://ronwade.freeservers.com/reagan.html

Students for Reagan (first row, second pin)

http://ronwade.freeservers.com/reagan2.html

Democrats for Reagan, Students for Reagan (sixth row, pin #5 and #8)

Women for Reagan (same page, bottom row, last button)

http://ronwade.freeservers.com/Reagan4.html

Women for Reagan, Another American Hero for Reagan (which I'm assuming either means veteran for Reagan or law enforcement/firefighter for Reagan) (second row, pin #1 and #5)

Same page, third row, pin #6 Athletes for Reagan

The following are Reagan/Bush buttons/stickers you could have bought back in the day when Reagan/Bush were running for office:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Women-for-Reagan-Bush-1984-Ronald-Reagan-Campaign-Button-/290678018761?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43adc292c9

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1980-RONALD-REAGAN-FOR-PRESIDENT-2-1-4-BUTTON-WOMEN-/320629653778?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa7044112

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-BUMPER-STICKER-1984-WOMEN-FOR-REAGAN-BUSH-/150771348689?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item231aac34d1

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1984-Ronald-Reagan-for-President-4-pin-set-Women-Athletes-for-Reagan-Uncommon-/120870342755?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c246f1063

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Women-for-Reagan-Bush-Pin-Back-Button-1984-/300541153315?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45f9a61023

Would you people get a life

John, in case you didn't notice, your question about what would happen if any of the republican candidates announced a Caucasians for ________— group was indeed answered. As already mentioned, that group, aka The Tea Party, has been formed as a generic right wing republican group. It is owned and operated by the Koch bros. with assistance from Dick Armey and a host of similar types.

+10!

If we send the Republican candidates to the moon, we will have to send food stamps because there is no way they can raise vegetables or beef on the moon. They will have to live off the labor of those of us on earth. Of course most of them are doing that anyway. Have any of these clowns ever done any real work?

Let's get those sedition laws goin'!

He wouldn't have to worry. Bob Vanderplaats would bail him out in a second! lol

Yes. I very much agree. Just because there's someone spouting bigoted insanity in opposition to all reason, that doesn't make anything "fair" or "balanced"

I've been thinking that this whole "war on religion" is just a cover meme for when the details of the child abuse roll out in court the Church can play the victim card.

Ahah! I think he's got it!

Dear me!

With paranoia like this, you'd make Joe McCarthy blush...!

If only Christian people were as organized as you claim (!). You can't even get two Christians to believe the same way on the Bible as a whole - much less embark in these conspiracies that you mentioned (sheesh!)

Speaking as a Texan, I can assure you that there is nothing paranoid about it, but I suspect you already know that and are trying to deflect Cooper's observations. It is typical right wing debate tactics to deflect a statement by deliberately misinterpreting it as you do when you wrote "if only Christian people were as organized as you claim."

No one is talking about "Christian people." The topic was the dominionists and others of the theocratic right. And if you claim that they are NOT organized, you lose any credibility you've ever had. If you will lie about that, you will lie about anything.

A non-controversial resolution? Someone in the Pennsylvania legislature needs to look up the definition of that term.

"As you know, I'm a Huffington Post blogger...unsolicited CV...I've written a number of important articles."

Wow, am I impressed! Not. What's with the conceited intro to a few blog posts? The fact that you're both a fantasy-believing Catholic as well as an alleged scientist doesn't really lead one to believe that the latter identity has its feet on the ground. You sound more like someone proud of his unsynthesized world view, and eager to share it with all of us via your "important articles." Get over yourself.

"Soul purpose": funny.