Enough of this ridiculous charade. There is nothing "liberal" about the fascistic cabal that has historically dominated the so called "democrats". George Washington was a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Ben Franklin was a liberal. FDR, LBJ, BHO, fascist scum all. You can refer to democrats by any number of accurate descriptions: fascist, authoritarian, social climbers, communists, cowards, traitors, or butt worm parasites. BUT DO NOT CALL THEM LIBERALS!!!

As opposed to the monkey you helped install in the White house?

Bush kept us safe by killing lots of terrorists and monitoring the communications of traitors such as yourself. That these policies were effective is made self evident by the fact that your dear leader has chosen to keep (or expand) the vast majority of the security policies set in place by America's last Legitimate President.

Q. If a liar truly believes his own words, can it really be called a lie?

A1. Who cares what a liar thinks or says?

A2. Ask Bill Clinton.

While civility on the part of the victors has led to the Civil War being described as a "war between the states", the plain fact is that the conflict was a war between Republican abolitionists and Democrat slavers. The two parties are still fighting over the same basic principals: individual liberty vs The Collective.

Round two coming up. I'll give you a hint as to the probable outcome; The coming conflict will be dominated by the faction that did not agree to give up their second amendment rights, while continuing to provide the vast majority of military recruits volunteering for combat duty. Figure the odds!

"Immelt embraces the notion of a new era of capitalism where companies coordinate their efforts with the government."

Private ownership of the means of production combined with Government control is the textbook definition of FASCISM, something that should be apparent to anybody who was paying attention in Econ 101. Apparently this group does not include the vast majority of U.S. politicians.

Well said Mr. Goldberg. Thank-you for your insight.

I would, however, suggest that with the ongoing Islamic conquest of Old Europe unlikely to abate, we should be less concerned with protecting "them", as opposed to defending ourselves from them.

"So Mr. Harvard your holier than thou concepts do not stand up to history and they certainly do nothing to further your argument."

I never said the First Civil War was fought over slavery. I said the democrat party was (and is) based on racism and slavery. That is all.

Obama thinks he is black because he is a democrat.

Democrats think he is black because they are racists who cling to the "one drop" theory (one drop of black blood makes you black) that has been the cornerstone of that party's existence since before they declared war on the American People back in 1860. (That would be America's first civil war, for any dhims who might be reading this :-)

Democrats are the slave party, both the owners as well as the owned. Same as it ever was.

Quick thought experiment: Given Barrack Obama's complete lack of credentials or accomplishments, is there anybody out there stupid enough to posit that he would be president today if he had blond hair and blue eyes?

Of course not! No white man with B.O.s resume would have been elected to high office (unless his last name was kennedy, that is) This whole disaster is nothing more than the logical end result of the "affirmative action" scam that the Dhimmikkkrats have been perpetrating on the American People for the last thirty years.

Willful ignorance is not a cost free exercise. We get the government we deserve.