?

It's bad enough that we have so many illegals voting, but why should we also have to deal with illiterate people voting? The so-called "Voting Rights" Act struck down these laws, so are racist liberals suggesting that blacks are too stupid to learn how to read in addition to getting voter IDs?

"More people will die unless you give men sexual options

Until you give men like Rodger a way to have sex, either by encouraging them to learn game, seek out a Thai wife, or engage in legalized prostitution—three things that the American media and cultural elite venomously attack, it’s inevitable for another massacre to occur."

http://www.returnofkings.com/36135/no-one-would-ha...

In other words, unless women have more sex with men, or prostitution is legalized, more people will die. I guess a secondary question should be "Is Return of Kings a hate group?" They're suggesting that we men are all sex-starved animals who kill if we can't get sex. It's pretty demeaning and misandristic.

How can we expect anything other than people like Elliot Roger if we do? While most men don't shoot a whole bunch of people and then themselves, plenty of men rape and abuse their girlfriends because of beliefs in power and entitlement to sex from women. Every time a mass-shooting happens, the media talks about guns and mental illness, yet 70/71 of the mass shooters have all been men. Why do we continue to teach boys to "dominate" and pretend that teenage boys can't control their sex-drives? Saying that rape is natural to men is an insult to all men.

Go to 5:19 of this video and you will actually find people sympathizing with Elliot Roger and what he did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPFcspwbrq8&bpctr=...

If you wisely don't open links from yahoo forums, youtube "ELLIOT RODGER: MORE THAN A MADMAN"

Rules for women to "prevent rape" include, but are not limited to:

"Look in the back seat of the car before getting in. Carry a cell phone. Don't go jogging at night. Lock all the windows while sleeping, even on hot summer nights. Be careful not to drink too much. Don't put your drink down and come back to it; make sure I see it being poured. Own a big dog. Carry Mace or pepper spray. Have an unlisted phone number. Have a man's voice on your answering machine. Park in well-lit areas. Don't use parking garages. Don't get on elevators with only one man, or with a group of men. Vary your route home from work. Watch what you wear. Don't use highway rest areas. Use a home alarm system. Don't wear headphones when jogging. Avoid forests or wooded areas, even in the daytime. Don't take a first-floor apartment. Go out in groups. Own a firearm. Meet men on first dates in public places. Make sure to have a car or cab fare. Don't make eye contact with men on the street. Make assertive eye contact with men on the street.”

Why must we teach women all of these rules rather than just teaching boys/men that girls/women aren't objects for sexual gratification? Being a rapist is not the natural state of a man, as these rules seem to suggest.

Why are most gang members men? Why are most members of terrorist groups (KKK, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Neo-Nazi group "Golden Dawn" of Greece, the Taliban, etc) men? How are we teaching men to behave differently than women if so many men are committing these horrendous acts but so fewer women are?

Like this amendment that is coming up?

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/schumer-senate-will...

Currently, there are no limits on how much George Soros and unions can donate to political campaign. Should Republicans fight to change this?

You can't expect fair elections while those people are tossing their untold billions into our election cycles.

I mean, since businesses outspend unions 15 to 1, shouldn't the former have higher priority?

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php

Also, if unions actually have more sway, why do Republicans defend Citizens United?

http://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/...

Recently, he said this:

"I have to say, though, folks, terrorism is the greatest threat, because we can still defeat liberals without violence. So terrorism still, of course, represents a greater threat than the Democrat Party. We can handle them without violence. So far."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/03/trick...

He seems to be implying that conservatives will have to use force against liberals in order to "defeat" them in the near future.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

http://nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcom...

Encouraging violence for political means is every definition of terrorism.

“Liberal” and “Republican” have only been contradictory words since Reagan purged liberals from the party. A liberal Republican by the name of Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and granted blacks personhood (with the unfortunate addition of corporate personhood that modern Republicans support). He was from the north, which has been liberal since the days of the Revolution (the Boston Tea Party was in the North) and continues to be so. Liberals gave blacks and women the right to vote (while the modern GOP just gutted the Voting Rights Act). Liberals created Social Security—a program that lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Violence Against Women Act (that the GOP let expire from 2011-2013).

Conservatives opposed every one of those things. They fought every one tooth and nail. Conservative southern Dixiecrats of the 60s before Nixon's "Southern Strategy" even filibustered the Civil Rights Act claiming they were "supporting nature" and “defending states’ rights”--the same argument used by conservatives against same-sex marriage nowadays.

So why isn’t “conservative” a bad word?

or 11% of the population: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge...

And that's just from the voter ID laws. That doesn't even include long lines or Rick Scott's "purges" of "non-citizens" (who, conviently, are mostly black and hispanic and vote Democrat).

Florida: "Voter suppression was rampant in Florida during the 2012 election. More than 50,000 people were unable to vote due to long precinct lines and arbitrary disqualifications. About 1,400 voters had their ballots thrown out by election officials due to claims that their signatures on the ballots didn’t match those on file."

"Two former Republican leaders in Florida subsequently admitted that their party’s efforts to limit voter fraud were really about preventing Democrats from getting to the polls on Election Day. Indeed, about 60% of voters discouraged by the long precinct lines in Florida would have voted Democratic, according to Ohio State University professor Theodore Allen."

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/lawsuit-a...

If Democrats said you can only buy a gun one day out of the year and had to wait 6 hrs in line only to find out that the governor has arbitrarily declared you a felon (and thus ineligible to buy guns, and would have to wait another 4 years), there would be assassinations.

People always ask me for proof of my claims, so I have provided it

The top 6 are all red. Even though Michigan went for Obama the last election, it's state legislature and governorship are all Republican.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-natio...

Shouldn't all that "tough on crime" stuff and cutting welfare and giving tax cuts to the rich be working?

Teddy Roosevelt supported unions and anti-trust laws. The Republican Party of the 20s pushed through the 19th amendment, giving women the right to vote (hindered by their current voter ID laws1). Eisenhower created thousands of jobs via a stimulus--his own highway project--that improved our infrastructure. He even bemoaned the military industrial complex. Taxes on the rich were 90% under him (2). Republicans helped pass for the Voting Rights Act in 1965 but now have gotten SCOTUS to gut it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and supported health care refrorm (3).

So what happened to the liberals in the Republican Party? Why has the GOP switched positions on all of these issues?

1: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/1...

2: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...

3: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/septe...

And besides Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Syria Mubarak’s Egypt, Iran, Uganda under Idi Amin, Libya under Qhaddafi, Communist Romania, Pinochet’s Chile, Fascist Spain, Fascist Italy[1].

Can anyone name any others? I’m sure the people of Bangladesh will start losing their generous civil liberties soon thanks to their government legalizing unions[2] , but hopefully we can keep our freedoms like the rest of these countries by continuing to get rid of the union thugs and trusting CEOs.

1: http://quickhits.tumblr.com/post/24819440871/count...

2: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-bangl...

"Yesterday, the House Homeland Security Committee published a video on their Youtube page highlighting a portion of the committee questioning Roberta Stempfley, acting assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Cyber-security and Communications, who confirmed at least 16 attacks on the Affordable Care Act’s portal Healthcare.gov website in 2013.

Roberta Stempfley highlighted one successful attack that is designed to deny access to the website called a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. A DDoS attack is designed to make a network unavailable to intended users, generally through a concerted effort to disrupt service such as repeatedly accessing the servers, saturating them with more traffic than the website is designed to handle."

http://www.examiner.com/article/right-wing-cyber-a...

Or will they blame Obama as usual for their own faults? After all, "Obamacare" was Romneycare first.

This question goes out to the people that think that the KKK stayed in the Democratic Party after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Rick Perry believes that every abortion clinic in Texas should be shutdown; he makes no exception for cases where the life of the mother is at stake. All to save the lives of the unborn.

Every donation saves 3 lives. http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blo...

Or we could keep him alive (sad, right?) and continue milking blood from his body as long as he lives. That would save far more lives.

Should Texas pass that law? It would save more lives than hurt. He would veto it, but the legislature could override his veto.

"The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention."--(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 10. 1925.)

http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/11

Members of the GOP hate Obama. Nothing moves their attention away from that. Not even a government shutdown. Not even hundreds of thousands of furloughed workers. Not even billions of dollars damage to the economy thanks to a lower credit rating. Not even the fact that Bush had his own Medicare Part D that was as much of a scam as they claim the Affordable Care Act to be.

Thoughts? Has the GOP mastered Hitler's wisdom?

Sharia law:

Support: Death penalty, strong military, prayer in schools..

Oppose: homosexuality (gays are killed in Saudi Arabia), secularism, abortions, divorce, pre-marital sex (hence limiting access to contraceptives and banning sex-ed).

Well? Is it? Makes more sense than calling Obama that. He supports Planned Parenthood and gay marriage.

There is a concept called body autonomy. Its generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent. If a man had sex with a woman and she later withdrew consent, but he continued anyway, that would be rape. If shooting him was the only way to stop him, most conservatives would be okay with that. Why does the same logic not apply to fetuses?

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a persons continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use. By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you are doing two things.

1. Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.

2. Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse.