There is no double standard, never was, and never will be. There is, however, either a misunderstanding on the part of the right as to what the true intentions of the left are, or the left is knowingly lying. Both are also a possibility. The truth, IMO, is that all the supposed "help" that the left pushes for, and claims is absolutely essential for the well-being of the unfortunate and victimized people, is not and never was truly intended to help them. It was always and always will be just a vehicle for the implementation of statism. The true goal is the expansion of government and its power with its inevitable corollary - the limitation and eventual elimination of personal liberty.

The OWS protesters are pathologically irrational luddites. They oppose anyone who produces anything of value (read:what people want). They have no problem with Soros et al because they produce nothing.

they are not "just part of [the 99%]". According to their words, they ARE the 99%. Being "part of..." is a meaningless term when you're making such broad generalizations. For that matter, they are also part of the 100%, but I'm sure they'll be the first to say they do not represent the interests of that 1%. And neither do they represent me. Yes, you can technically say we are in the same group. But child molesters, murderers, terrorists, etc. are also part of the 99%. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the use of meaningless terms.

The protesters sincerely believe they represent 99%. They think that a majority of the 99% is too stupid or is too brainwashed to realize it. In re: the ANP - while the protestors certainly do want to project a certain image (though not all of them necessarily agree on what that image should be), their rejection of the ANP's presence is mostly due to the fact that they truly do not realize just to what degree their goals align with the Nazis. It is both because they do not really understand what national socialism is, nor do they really understand what they are pursuing.

Thanks for your service to our country. I have no doubt that you have proven your responsibility in handling weapons. The problem is that no amount of proof will allow me to carry a weapon to protect myself in NJ. THAT is not equal protection. Don't misunderstand my statement to mean that I think off-duty officers should not be allowed to carry weapons (although there are a few who probably should not be allowed to carry them ON-duty either, but that is another issue entirely).

The problem is the massive barriers that are places (in some states) to non-law enforcement people to obtain carry permits. So an off-duty officer is allowed a greater level of protection than non-officers. This in itself does not mean this is a banana republic (I shouldn't have to explain this). It is because a PERSON sits and decides who gets constitutional protection and who does not. This issue is just another manifestation of that.

In re: equal protection vis-a-vis Obamacare - the14th amendment is long gone along with the first ten. Since we have descended to the banana-republic-style rue by men, preferences are routinely applied throughout. Just a few examples off the top of my head: Affirmative action; allowing off-duty/retired police officers to carry weapons; drug-free school zones; requiring residents to be notified of sex offenders in the neighborhood, but not of robbers, murderers, arsonists, etc.; reduced sales tax ("enterprise") zones;

If the Dems managed to get lies into mainstream thinking (conservatives are "against" blacks, gays, women, etc.), by sheer repetition, then I still believe the opposite can be done too. The problem is that saying those things does not give instant results. And in politics, when you're campaigning on Oct 29th, you don't have time to shift the way people think. So it's best to just say those things that will endear you with the media, or not say those things which will elicit their ire. The change will have to come about mainly from people who are not running for office.

The lumping is wrong, both socially and mathematically. Not all blacks are the same. "Black unemployment" is not so much a "black" problem as it is a problem of poor education, drop-out rates, out-of-wedlock birth rates, drug use, etc. These problems are much more prevalent in the inner city, where a larger %-age of the black pop. lives than whites. But black people who are not in that culture don't have those problems. So it's not a "black" problem. It's a cultural problem among people of whom a significant %-age are black. Treating it as a "black problem" is like solving obesity by getting a fun house mirror that makes you look thin.

get the same thing? The challenge for Republicans is greater than promising giveaways. They need to get people to understand that voting for them represents a paradigm shift away from nanny-state gov't and toward self-reliance. The voting shift will then come naturally.