We don't have to say anything. The Tea Party is right about over spending, bailouts and big government. It is common sense. You only name call when you have no argument. Even Jimmy Hoffa couldn't contain himself today at the Obama rally. Hoffa can call me anything he wants. I guess I'd be bitter too if my thug of a father was wearing cement boots somewhere wet and cold.
You do understand that after the Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon, most pro-segregationists joined the Republican party after 1968. This is why Republicans have tended to dominate the South during elections.
I had no idea that fighting for equal rights and defending the promise of the constitution was socialist. Perhaps we need more socialists like Dr. King. As for Obama, he's showed an incredible amount of leadership considering that half his government has made it their personal mission to make him a one-term president.
A belief isn't the same as a program. And spreading the wealth around isn't necessarily a socialist concept. Adam Smith also believed in some wealth redistribution as well.
Are you sure about this? Can you provide some credible evidence of this major shift? The South is still a majority of Democrats; but they happen to still be Conservative Democrats and not the mindless moron version that infests the Northeast and Pacific West. The term is "Blue Dog."
I had no idea fighting for equal rights were the dominion of Socialists. I am quite certain many Conservatives fight for it as well. As for defending the Constitution, that is the LAST thing Socialists would do; they want to re-write or re-interpret it to fit their idiotic ideological agendas. It is apparent that you do not have the first clue what leadership entails. This man has done nothing for the last three years but admonish and divide and insult us with class envy rhetoric. The Government is far more polarized than any other in recent memory thanks to his inability to lead and engage the opposition.
Please provide this evidence of Adam Smith arguing wealth should be "spread around." I am quite certain he did not advocate the idea of "deciders" in Government who know better how to spend our hard earned wealth than we do.
If you want to be taken seriously you might want to change your tactic. Obama's belief saturates programs. It is the basis. Spread-it-around is based in the simple thought that you take from one group and give it to another.
