Wow, that guy sounded like an extreme liberal by my standards, and I'm not even a republican.

N e one who opposes the Constitution and the bill of rights is a t*****r. N e one who opposes God is just a fool.

Notice, I did not say the democrat's answer was the right answer. What I said was that the republicans need an alternative answer to this corporate welfare issue and ignoring this will not make it go away.

ahem, correctly

No, the citizenship test asks them to spell the word "immigrant" correct :P

Conservatives closed minded on: Pre-emptive war, life threatening a******ns, reasonable gun control(out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals), basic homosexual rights
Liberals close minded on: a******n in general(life vs. feelings), reasonable gun freedoms and constitutional rights, homosexual civil rights.

Both sides get more and more extreme. It's sickening. Conservatives: War should only be a last resort, some a******ns are necessary to save lives, guns in the hands of mentally disturbed individuals is a bad idea. Homosexuals deserve some rights. Liberals: The life of a baby is more important than a person's feelings, there are good reasons to have a weapon, there is a specific gene that determines a person's skin. There isn't a specific gene that determines a person's sexuality. Political Correctness is usually scientifically incorrect.

The democrats will not hesitate to pounce and exaggerate, though.

I know of a disabled person who wasn't able to get into the disabled portion of social security. It isn't easy to get in there. Making assumptions without facts and applying them to lives of several million people is a very bad idea. I don't think the republicans truly plan on v****g this through. Too many of their own constituents are involved.

The government's denial that explosives were used to try to control the damage to surrounding buildings is understandable but, they need to stop denying it. There's too much scientific evidence that says otherwise

There have been numerous reports detailing the cause of the World Trade Center Tower collapse on September 11, 2001. Most have provided qualitative explanations; however, simple quantitative analyses show that some common conclusions are incorrect; for example, the steel could not melt in these flames and there was more structural damage than merely softening of the steel at elevated temperatures. - Journal of Metallurgy

National Institute of Standards and Technology tried to explain the collapse of WTC 7 but, the explanation was based on faulty, incomplete evidence and directly contradicted several photographs taken during and just after the collapse. That's the buildong which collapsed with no plane hitting it. Some have gone so far as to accuse NIST of committing scientific fraud as well. 118 New York firefighters reported that explosions occurred in WTC 7 right before it collapsed. There is scientific proof that the collapse of WTC 7 did involve explosives. The evidence of proof can be found here:http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201 Read it If you have a scientific refutation, I would be happy to hear it.

There is no official report by the US government on how the World Trade Centers fell but, everyone assumes there is simply because that's what most Americans do, make assumptions.(That are usually incorrect) Several experts have tried to explain it but, there are flaws in each one. No expert has come up with a good explanation for how they fell. This can be checked on Google if you don't believe me.

I dont' know how you all got off the primary topic but, this article is true. I've noticed several people here attack the author for putting this on here. Sorry, pro- business does not make you conservative. It just makes you pro-business. Wal-mart is way too greedy. The answer isn't c*******m but, republicans need to find some answer to this because, it is a major problem. You can say " get an education" but, there is no way to get an education with that kind of pay, and, let's face it folks, some people don't have the intelligence needed for a higher education. That does not mean Wal-mart should be taking advantage of them like that. Sure, we could cut off the welfare for them as well but, who wants to see homeless people who also work as wal-mart employees. What wal-mart is doing is d********g, and the bible does speak out against that kind of thing. I majorly dislike Obama but, republicans haven't provided an alternative answer. The definition of republican should not only mean pro-business.

Barack Obama isn't a bad president because of the color of his skin. He's a bad president because of his extreme viewpoints. What's even more sad is that you would think because he's black that he would do something to truly help african americans in our country as a whole but, he's done hardly anything to help their plight. I think rap is the worst thing that could have happened to the black race. Almost all of it speaks to only the base instincts of humanity instead of focusing on ideas of embetterment. There are many black people that I admire from the past but, there are very few black people of today that I admire. I would like to see a black republican president.

I agree that there is still r****m but, it applies to both w****s and b****s. I lkied Martin Luther King's dream of not judging people by the color of their skin. Barack Obama isn't a bad president because, he's black I thought it was cool that America could elect a black president though, I was worried because of his extremist viewpoints I'm sure r****m did have something to do with the results of your study but, I would say that culturism has a lot more to do with it than race does. Put a white man in thug or even biker clothes and you'll get a lot of the same results.

I agree with you that Fox news "unbiased t***h" is incredibly biased, and there's plenty of spin from both Fox news and Rush radio. Being neither Republican nor Democrat allows me to see things without the blinders that both parties wear. That being said, if you think none of what Lindajay wrote was true then, you haven't even been reading liberal newspapers. I can give you link to liberal articles which cover some of those topics she mentioned and they aren't in defense of Obama either. While Lindajay's statements aren't entirely true and some connections are really stretched in some circumstances, the author wouldn't be given a "pants on fire" rating by politifact. If you wish for liberal articles on some of the topics she mentioned, just ask.