Democrats and the media have been doing it for years, declaring that every white republican is a racist and every minority republican is a tool. There's only several problems with such a tactic. First, it's stereotyping and discrimination, two things Democrats claim to be vehemently opposed to. Second, it's not true. Registering as a Republican does not make one racist or even strongly suggest that one could be a racist. There are so many social, religious, and political reasons to vote for either party that such a claim is "the boy crying wolf". NAMBLA supports the Democratic party. Does that make all Democrats Pedophiles? If the Democratic Party were to support a party platform declaring all blacks could own white slaves, the KKK would definitely support the Republican Party. Third, declaring all Republican candidates prevents people from recognizing true racists and racism. It desensitizes people from seeing real dangers. Fourth, it prevents them from seeing the racism and racist policies within their own party. Fifth, it belittles true victims of racism. The Democratic party, the media, AND progressives are the grown up version of the school bully. They love to name call: All Republicans are racist, All Republicans are sexist, All Republicans are homophobes and since spanking is "child abuse" then, all Republicans are child abusers. This is a way of shutting down the dialogue, of preventing valid concerns and valid opposing ideas from being heard.

I may be new here, but it has been really easy to spot the trolls. Coolbreeze writes, You Birthers Bums never quit do you? http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/609299 Give it Up!. They love cheap slurs.

Well, I went to read that. It didn't prove a damn thing. It was just speculation and guessing like those who write about the number being phony. Neither side has the real proven answer. The trouble with the obominable one unfit to be mentioned is that there are all to many questions about those early days from his birth right up to .....well, now.

He's putting together a building, with leftist donations, a propaganda repository called a library. Well, libraries are supposed to be a source of truth and knowledge. Will he offer proof to all of the questionable things about him, like post the original birth certificate in a bulletproof glass case to protect it, but leaving it open for examination. I doubt it. It will all be just propaganda.

cheers

Good Afternoon, Linda. Happy Sunday!

Aw, Jeeze, not the 'racism' thing again. Why me? OK, because it's you I'll bite; let's start with a definition, shall we?

Racism:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Note the 'superiority' aspect. The 'I'm better than you because I'm (insert race here)' attitude. Without the superiority aspect, it's not strictly racism. This is what really grinds my grits when these fools go spraying the word RACISM!!!! around without even knowing what they're saying. What they're basically doing is accusing me (or you, or anybody) of having a 'superiority complex'. And the real kicker is it always comes right after you prove to them that their (insert statement here) is completely senseless. Your argument is superior, therefore you must think that you are superior. Hence. you're a racist. When you look at it from that standpoint, it dies kinda make some twisted sense.

Of course, calling somebody a racist is just assigning them a label. Labels are not a good thing in my experience. They are way too generalized and can be redefined way too easily. Remember when it was 'fun' to be 'gay'? Using that word now refers to a sexual preference. How did that happen? How did it become sexually perverse to be 'gay'? Don't even start me on a pair of 'boobs'...

So, yeah, to answer the question, it does matter how people are labeled. Labeling an individual is to 'dehumanize' that person. You are placing them in a neat little box marked (insert label here). I consider that wrong. To label a group may or may not be appropriate. For instance, take the Nazis... Whoa!! OK! OK! Just kidding! Please put the knife down, Linda!! (Changing the subject real quick...) Take the Democrats (no, please, just take them). They label themselves as being 'progressive'. According to them, they believe that government should perform a prominent role in helping American citizens "progress" further in their economic security. Hence they're 'progressives'. Don't laugh, this is their label, assigned by them, for themselves. To anyone with some knowledge of political systems, their methodologies in 'helping Americans secure their economic security' look a lot like socialism. But they know that Americans are leery about socialists, so they change their label to 'progressive', and offer to help us all with our economic futures. The more politically naive among us look at this and give it credence because it's not called 'socialism' and anyway, 'free stuff'.

Let's look at another label: 'Liberal'. This has got to be one of the most abused words in the entire lexicon of the world from the first word spoken to today. Originally, to be a liberal was to be in favor of constitutionally limited government and against political interference in the marketplace. The nearest approximation in today's parlance to an 18th century liberal would be a libertarian. The word 'liberal' has been crunched, chewed, twisted, spat out and run over so many times that it bears no resemblance to it's original meaning. Today's liberal is a card carrying, no holds barred, dyed in the wool socialist with communist tendencies. Today's liberal has absolutely no resemblance to the liberal of the 18th and early 19th centuries.

So yeah, labels. I won't hand them out and most certainly won't wear one. Now you know why.