Yes, some of these people have said stupid things that could certainly be taken to be racist. I never said that no members of the Democratic party are racist, I'm sure that some are. Republicans however exploit prejudice for political gain. They exploited racism with the Southern strategy and they continue to exploit prejudice against gays. I would like to point out though that Byrd expressed regret for his past racism (something Thurmond never did) and that Gephardt was socially conservative early in his career (some Democrats are conservative).

Do you think that racism is nonexistent within the Republican party, considering that they used the Southern strategy to win white people over? It's hard to tell if the claims that Obama was born in Kenya or that hes Muslim result from an obscure form of racism or if its just stupidity. My guess would be that its some of both.

The prejudice against gays and lesbians has nothing to do with race, but it is still prejudice. Would you find it acceptable if someone used cultural belief differences as an excuse for prejudice against black people?

And to answer the ridiculous question you asked last: Of course not, why would I?

You may want to look into the Southern strategy. Democrats and Republicans did a role reversal when the conservative base shifted in the 1960s. Why do you think Strom Thurmond switched parties in 1964, and why do you think that so few minorities vote Republican?

And let me ask you this: Which party is most likely to support equal rights for people who are discriminated against today, such as gays and lesbians?

Bush's tax cuts were not beneficial.

The CBPP found that:

- The economic impact of the tax cuts would only offset about 10% of the long term cost of making the cuts permanent.

- "In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut."

- Millionaires saw a 7.6% increase in after tax income, while the middle class saw 2.3% and the bottom 20% of earners saw 0.4% during Bush's tax cuts.

- Half of the deficit during Bush's years in office came from his tax cuts.

- Bush's tax cuts over the next decade would add more to the deficit then the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's stimulus, the TARP program and revenue lost to the recession put together.

I'm fine with extending the tax cuts for the middle class and those with a lower income, but why do we need to extend it for the wealthiest earners and why do they need a disproportionate amount?

So much for republicans reducing the deficit. Oh, and you're welcome.

The minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour. Do you think that people who work in this country are not even entitled to that? If we are going to give a tax break to anyone, should it be the person making minimum wage or the person making $10 million a year? Why should we put an extra burden on people who are barely getting by as it is?

Unemployment benefits certainly do not pay as much as the person would make working at their previous job. I'm certainly glad to know that there is a safety net in place for all the people who are out of a job right now. These people want jobs, but if there are not enough jobs to go around, what are they and their families to do in your opinion, starve?

Resorting to name calling? How childish of you. What do you consider to be an unbiased source? I suppose it would be fox news, correct?

You know, I bet you're right about the derogatory remarks made toward Rep. John Lewis and Rep. Barney Frank being false. Its absolutely unthinkable that the conservatives who are so rational as to think that Obama was born in Kenya, that hes a Muslim, and a Communist, who want inequality for gay people, and who have supported people like Rand Paul (who thought that businesses should be allowed to refuse service based on race), could harbor any sort of racism or prejudice aimed toward gay people.

The fact that republicans voted to end unemployment benefits and are trying to extend tax breaks to the wealthy has been widely reported on. Do you agree or disagree with the republicans on ending unemployment benefits and extending tax breaks to the wealthy? If you do agree, then what should the four out of five job seekers for which there is no job opening do for an income? Why should we increase the deficit to give tax breaks to the wealthy?

There certainly is racism and other types of discrimination within the conservative movement. Remember when Rep. John Lewis was called a Ni**er and Rep. Barney Frank was called a f**got at a tea party protest?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-part...

Most of the things that I've heard about Obama from conservatives are not racist however, they are just asinine. While there are legitimate criticisms to be made about Obama, I haven't heard one yet from a conservative. Its unfortunate that conservatives can not see that they are supporting and voting for a party that does not have their interest in mind. The republicans voted to end unemployment benefits, even though there is one job opening for every five job seekers. Republicans are also trying to extend tax breaks for the wealthy which would add $36 billion to the deficit next year according to this article. http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/tax-b...

Large corporations have been responsible for many of the attacks on Obama's policies, and have also financed the tea party to protect their own interest, which you can read about here.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100...

I never said what he did was desirable, I was just pointing out that its unjustifiable and a waste of money to imprison this person for life if he didn't kill anyone, and that spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a losing drug war is a waste. If people want to become intoxicated they will find a way. Alcohol kills also, should we criminalize the manufacture and possession of alcohol? It could also be said that the criminalization of drugs plays into the hands of gangs. How do you think they make most of their money? A better approach is needed.

Alcohol kills people too. Perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars should be spent to criminalize it also, or was that tried already? How did it work out?

Life in prison seems to me to be an unjustified punishment when he didn't kill anyone. I wonder how much its going to cost taxpayers to keep him locked up for the rest of his life? According to http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/econ... the war on drugs cost taxpayers $40 billion annually. I'm sure the recent ban of K2 will only add to these cost. Seems like a waste when people who want to become intoxicated could inhale paint thinner or go to the gas station and buy alcohol. I suppose we could make it illegal once again to possess alcohol since it worked out so well last time.

Where are all the conservatives who want to cut wasteful government spending? The war on drugs would seem to be a good place to cut spending, or you could just cut unemployment benefits.