Where's the love. I not hear to say that the Republican are morally superior in today's society.

I'm not implying that the Republicans are in the same groove as Lincoln. But still they freed the slaves , set up black Colleges and the the NAACP.

While the Democrats wiped their slaves, formed the KKK and hindered the civil rights for as long as possible. Democrats are despicable. They promote equal rights only if you view is the same as theirs. They have enslaved the poor for over 50 years, telling them keep voting for us and well keep giving you substandard living. That's not freedom that's enslavement.

All of this and the media of today hails the Democrat party as the greatest party of mankind. What blind sheep.



Even worse if you are a black republican. You are deemed an Uncle Tom by the left. That's the exact opposite of the original meaning.

By far the Republicans are the lessor of 2 evils. Both parties are corrupt beyond any sense of the measure.

Both are so far from the ideals founding fathers and the Constitution.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

>> ^VoodooV:

I sorta agree with that. But the thing is, he knew he'd get booed. It was a ploy. It's not like he went in there thinking he could honestly convince them that AHCA should be repealed. When he said that, he wasn't talking to the crowd, he was talking to the people who already agree with him.
That's the thing with the degradation of political discourse these days. Very few politicians actually attempt to convince people that their ideas are better, they merely try to rally people who already support them. It's far easier to rile up people who already agree with you than it is to convince someone who doesn't agree with you.
It should be obvious that health care as it is now is in need of reform. We keep spending more but we get less and less in return. We can't keep doing this. It was originally a Republican idea to reform it. I don't pretend to know much about AHCA so I can't really comment much on specifics, but I think everyone even on the left acknowledges it's not a perfect program. So let's correct those issues? My far right-leaning uncle who was a pharmacist complained all the time about the increased paperwork and red-tape because of AHCA. OK...that's a legitimate complaint. Let's DO something about that. Let's actually fix the problem instead of playing political games.
You want to repeal it? fine, but show me a better plan that you want to replace it with instead of returning to the status quo. I haven't seen anyone doing that. I want to move forward, not backwards.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't think this was a bad moment for him at all. He calmly waited out the booing, didn't back down, and tied Obamacare to his economic message. Overall, I think he handled it pretty well.



Do you buy the liberal talking point that Romney deliberately mentioned he would repeal Obamacare so that it would "jazz up" racist conservatives in the republican base? Because he gave the NAACP the same speech he gives everywhere else, so if you're saying this speech was for someone else, then who, and why is this different in front of a black audience, if you aren't charging Romney with playing to racists?

There is so much divisiveness in this election. It's rich versus poor, men versus women, and black versus white. This country is more divided even than it was during the bush years. I think there is a lot of merit to the charge that since the president cannot run on his record, he is making this election about anything but a referendum on his job performance. Don't get me wrong, because I pray for the president and his family, but this shows such an intellectual dishonesty on his part. For someone who ran on hope and change in 2008, promising to fundamentally change the discourse in Washington, he has shown a willingness to say or do anything to keep his job; in other words, he is no different than any other politician. Washington has become much more divisive and sanctimonious since he took office, and I think this shows a failure of leadership.

I agree with what you're saying about healthcare. We should have some kind of system in place, and if the republicans are going to repeal Obamacare, they should have an alternative idea (preferably with far less government involvement). I don't think it's a bad idea in principle, but honestly I think that a government takeover of our healthcare system is never going to be anything other than a total nightmare. It's projected cost is already nearly 3 times what it was said to be originally, and it hasn't even been implemented yet. It is also going to cut medicare hugely. My mom is going to lose her health insurance directly because of Obamacare. It is a juggernaut and no one really knows how this will all play out. I simply do not trust the government to manage this; I think government management of our lives to that extent is a big mistake, especially for individual liberties. The nanny state will always lead to fascism in the end.

I sorta agree with that. But the thing is, he knew he'd get booed. It was a ploy. It's not like he went in there thinking he could honestly convince them that AHCA should be repealed. When he said that, he wasn't talking to the crowd, he was talking to the people who already agree with him.

That's the thing with the degradation of political discourse these days. Very few politicians actually attempt to convince people that their ideas are better, they merely try to rally people who already support them. It's far easier to rile up people who already agree with you than it is to convince someone who doesn't agree with you.

It should be obvious that health care as it is now is in need of reform. We keep spending more but we get less and less in return. We can't keep doing this. It was originally a Republican idea to reform it. I don't pretend to know much about AHCA so I can't really comment much on specifics, but I think everyone even on the left acknowledges it's not a perfect program. So let's correct those issues? My far right-leaning uncle who was a pharmacist complained all the time about the increased paperwork and red-tape because of AHCA. OK...that's a legitimate complaint. Let's DO something about that. Let's actually fix the problem instead of playing political games.

You want to repeal it? fine, but show me a better plan that you want to replace it with instead of returning to the status quo. I haven't seen anyone doing that. I want to move forward, not backwards.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't think this was a bad moment for him at all. He calmly waited out the booing, didn't back down, and tied Obamacare to his economic message. Overall, I think he handled it pretty well.

>> ^bobknight33:

Your at a site the baths in liberalism and they will stab you if you even have thought other that theirs.

You're just a Siftist. And don't tell me you can't possibly be a Siftist because you have friends who are Sifters, or that your tolerance of Sifters is evidence of your innocence. I bet you think star powers are "special rights" as well.

Siftist.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^PoweredBySoy:
lol. Pretty weak.
>> ^Chaucer:

I must have hit the nail on the head with you having no life experiences as now you are just making shit up. GG Troll.


@Chaucer is another one of those people who seems to think "troll" means "anyone who disagrees with you"
it's not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


I don't know exactly when trolling became synonymous with bridge trolls and the like, but I distinctly remember seeing various posts many years ago on Usenet urging people to "stop feeding the trolls" and thinking "that's not what troll means! Troll is a VERB! It's all about FISHING!"

Anyway, @Chaucer is one of those people whose lineage would have been wiped from the genepool if human survival were still largely dependant upon the whims of hungry lions and other predators. He's either too stupid or too stubborn to learn anything and too self-righteous to even consider any view he can't see in his mirror. I suspect he is pretty young (or a short-busser), which means he's got a long, miserable life still ahead of him if he doesn't pull his head out soon.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

^Chaucer:

I must have hit the nail on the head with you having no life experiences as now you are just making shit up. GG Troll.


everyone hates u...

Your video, Mitt Romney Booed at NAACP Event, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^PoweredBySoy:

lol. Pretty weak.
>> ^Chaucer:

I must have hit the nail on the head with you having no life experiences as now you are just making shit up. GG Troll.



@Chaucer is another one of those people who seems to think "troll" means "anyone who disagrees with you"

it's not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

lol. Pretty weak.

>> ^Chaucer:


I must have hit the nail on the head with you having no life experiences as now you are just making shit up. GG Troll.

>> ^Chaucer:

I must have hit the nail on the head with you having no life experiences as now you are just making shit up. GG Troll.


What is he making up? That you a racist douchebag? No, you see he's not making that up as we have evidence for that.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^Chaucer:
you guys have no clue what racism really is. You are probably all white folk thats grown up in white suburbia and havent experience shit in the real world, much less racism. Grow up trolls. My comment doesnt even meet the basic criteria for being racism.
You guys have no clue. If I made a statement, most mexicans have toned skin. Is that racism? No. Its simply the experiences that I have had through life that leads me to believe this. Is it accurate, who knows. My statement above is no different.
Again, grow up trolls. If you want to see racism, go live in Memphis for a few years. Then you might be able to tell the difference between a comment and what is racist.
Or live in ignorance... whatever gets you through the day.

mexicans having darker skin has actual physical evidence backing it up moron, that's why it's not racist. you can actually back that with this thing called science. Your original statement is you being an ignorant prick. In other words, Chaucer is not the center of the universe and your personal experiences colored as they are do not dictate reality.
It is deeply disturbing that you cannot tell the difference between those two statements.


I must have hit the nail on the head with you having no life experiences as now you are just making shit up. GG Troll.

>> ^Chaucer:

you guys have no clue what racism really is. You are probably all white folk thats grown up in white suburbia and havent experience shit in the real world, much less racism. Grow up trolls. My comment doesnt even meet the basic criteria for being racism.
You guys have no clue. If I made a statement, most mexicans have toned skin. Is that racism? No. Its simply the experiences that I have had through life that leads me to believe this. Is it accurate, who knows. My statement above is no different.
Again, grow up trolls. If you want to see racism, go live in Memphis for a few years. Then you might be able to tell the difference between a comment and what is racist.
Or live in ignorance... whatever gets you through the day.


mexicans having darker skin has actual physical evidence backing it up moron, that's why it's not racist. you can actually back that with this thing called science. Your original statement is you being an ignorant prick. In other words, Chaucer is not the center of the universe and your personal experiences colored as they are do not dictate reality.

It is deeply disturbing that you cannot tell the difference between those two statements.

This is true, Bob is unburdened with facts...life does get a lot simpler when you don't bother with evidence and critical thinking. Who cares if some colored folk get enslaved in the process. Who do they think they are wanting equal rights and drinking from OUR water fountains. What IS this world coming to?

And is it just me or is Bob's grammar getting worse? He's getting more and more incoherent.

>> ^bobknight33:

I find liberals are always first to pull the race card.
By their standards if you generalize then you are a raciest. Never mind life experiences or facts.

Your at a site the baths in liberalism and they will stab you if you even have thought other that theirs.

>> ^Chaucer:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Chaucer:
It doesnt surprise me that they boo'd that' he'd repeal Obamacare. Most black people just want free shit at the expense of others.

I'm going to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you do realize that that was pretty much the definition of racism right?

Actually, that isnt racism as there is no hate there. Its just an observation that I have formed through my life experiences.