On November 12 2012 04:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
Both parties have probably moved a little further from the center. The difference is that the outer fringe has gained strength in the GOP (ultra-conservatives) whereas the ultra-left fringe liberals have not.
We've seen quite a few times in the past few years where a moderate republican has gotten knocked out of a house or senate seat by a more extreme conservative. Shortly thereafter a democrat wins the seat, even though the democrat wouldn't have been able to unearth the original moderate Republican.
On November 12 2012 04:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
Both parties have probably moved a little further from the center. The difference is that the outer fringe has gained strength in the GOP (ultra-conservatives) whereas the ultra-left fringe liberals have not.
We've seen quite a few times in the past few years where a moderate republican has gotten knocked out of a house or senate seat by a more extreme conservative. Shortly thereafter a democrat wins the seat, even though the democrat wouldn't have been able to unearth the original moderate Republican.
*sigh* We're so weird. It's like, voters say, "We want all the traditional conservatism that we're assuming by your name, but... you have to pass liberal policies." I...what? X-D
On November 12 2012 04:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
Both parties have probably moved a little further from the center. The difference is that the outer fringe has gained strength in the GOP (ultra-conservatives) whereas the ultra-left fringe liberals have not.
We've seen quite a few times in the past few years where a moderate republican has gotten knocked out of a house or senate seat by a more extreme conservative. Shortly thereafter a democrat wins the seat, even though the democrat wouldn't have been able to unearth the original moderate Republican.
On November 12 2012 04:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
Both parties have probably moved a little further from the center. The difference is that the outer fringe has gained strength in the GOP (ultra-conservatives) whereas the ultra-left fringe liberals have not.
We've seen quite a few times in the past few years where a moderate republican has gotten knocked out of a house or senate seat by a more extreme conservative. Shortly thereafter a democrat wins the seat, even though the democrat wouldn't have been able to unearth the original moderate Republican.
*sigh* We're so weird. It's like, voters say, "We want all the traditional conservatism that we're assuming by your name, but... you have to pass liberal policies." I...what? X-D
No. In the primaries, far right people are the ones most likely to vote and get involved, so often the extreme right wing candidates that get the GOP nomination are not what the voters want, this is shown when they're beat by moderate democrats in normally republican districts. Overall the people want moderate candidates.
On November 12 2012 04:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
Both parties have probably moved a little further from the center. The difference is that the outer fringe has gained strength in the GOP (ultra-conservatives) whereas the ultra-left fringe liberals have not.
We've seen quite a few times in the past few years where a moderate republican has gotten knocked out of a house or senate seat by a more extreme conservative. Shortly thereafter a democrat wins the seat, even though the democrat wouldn't have been able to unearth the original moderate Republican.
*sigh* We're so weird. It's like, voters say, "We want all the traditional conservatism that we're assuming by your name, but... you have to pass liberal policies." I...what? X-D
No. In the primaries, far right people are the ones most likely to vote and get involved, so often the extreme right wing candidates that get the GOP nomination are not what the voters want, this is shown when they're beat by moderate democrats in normally republican districts. Overall the people want moderate candidates.
ding ding, the US has always preferred moderates and over the years that shifts slowly to the left or right and back again. Anyways some seats this year just come off idiots talking about rape when more women vote then men in the US. Akin, mourdock, smith all lost off taking a social conservative stance and then burning bridges by speaking outta their ass, wider would probably have lose too if Idaho was voting this year.
On November 12 2012 00:12 D10 wrote: How do you view the young turks ?
Annoying and liberally biased.
At least the Daily Show is funny and is less overbearing.
Feel the same way. I love when he pokes fun at Bill O'Reilly, even though on the issues I tend to agree with Bill a tiny bit more. I think Bill just makes an idiot out of himself and makes me wish I didn't agree with his main point.
On November 12 2012 00:29 white_horse wrote:
On November 11 2012 21:33 kmillz wrote:
On November 11 2012 15:45 Leporello wrote:
So, yeah, conservative ideology might be great (or not), but their politicians are what matter. And they're awful. If the GOP would elect a candidate to get on stage in a national debate, with a Democrat, and tell America they want to declare fetuses to be human in all cases of conception (we saw a little of that in some State elections this year, to hilarious results), call global-warming a giant conspiracy, cut the Estate Tax and cut down the top income-tax brackets, denounce evolution, denounce homosexuality, denounce Social Security and Medicare, make it easier for people to buy more assault weapons, etc. -- then I will vote for that person purely for their honesty, even though I'd be disagreeing with everything they're saying. But it'll never happen, because conservative ideology, even in at its most tepid, is currently not at all what America wants.
It saddens me that this is how the GOP is seen. Funny..I once considered myself a Republican and a Catholic and now I am neither. Didn't vote for Romney even though I think Obama's policies are terrible..its like I wanted to like him so much, but he literally made it impossible. He got whooped anyway, not like my one vote would've changed that..and now I get to have a clean conscience knowing I didn't vote for either evil! :D
Well its kind of obvious why they are seen that way. The GOP has been jerked around by its tea party. The GOP doesn't just disagree with obama. They disrespect him. And I think part of the reason why is because he's black. Any republican will vehemently deny that they are racist if you ask them about it, but I think part of the reason of so much vitriol coming from the GOP is because obama is black.
Accusing the president of not being born in the US even after proof is posted, accusing him to be some evil muslim, trump offering money to the public to uncover "secret' information about obama, accusing him of rigging the unemployment statistics for political gain, etc etc. Really now. I wonder how far the GOP would have gone with this kind of stuff had obama been white. These kind of antics scare away decent people who are only interested in whats good for the country.
Racism is a two-way street, and to suggest that only vitriol is coming from the GOP because obama is black, but yet disregard the possibility that vitriol could come from the other side because Mitt Romney is white is just silly....Unless you have some evidence that the GOP is more racist to black people than the Democratic party is racist towards white people, I would suggest you stop listening to Chris Matthews so much. You really think the birther movement started because he is black? Let's not forget:
Some bloggers are questioning John McCain's right to run for the presidency on the basis of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone.
Not EVERYTHING is about race....seriously. I'm not really that sympathetic towards any disrespect Obama gets after what George W. Bush endured. Not saying he was a good President...but as far as I'm concerned Obama is just as bad in the issues that concern me (liberty) and I can understand why half the country would have little respect for either of them. My honest opinion is that yes, there are people who are racist and simply do not like Obama for that reason (and again..its a 2-way street! Just ask Jay-Z why he isn't voting for smaller government), but I do not think it is the MAIN reason for the harshness towards him...I think that more stems from disagreement on policy.
I wonder why a few bloggers questioned McCain's birth. Maybe because he was actually born outside the US and at the time there was a lot of questions already being directed at one particular candidate's location at birth. That didn't last very long because there's basically no proof to show that McCain, while born in another country, is not a US citizen. A few years after the release of both his short and long-form birth certificates and there's still people who think he's Kenyan. And these aren't just uneducated voters either, there are plenty of GOP politicians (mostly at the state level) who express the same sentiment. Things got quieter after the release of his long form birth certificate + Osama's death but the sentiment is still there.
And D's racist against white people? lol. I guess that explains why Republicans won the white vote, they just felt disenfranchised and were afraid of those racist minorities.
Calling the Republican party as a whole racist to black people is just as ridiculous as calling the Democratic party as a whole racist to white people. Why do idiots thinking he is from Kenya have to be racist idiots? I don't get the connection.
Because it feels like dog-whistle racism. The protests over obama's birthplace itself isn't ncessarily a problem. It's a problem when clear evidence has been made to the public and people still demand proof over obama's birthplace. That suggests anger toward obama that isn't just political. The GOP as a whole is definitely not racist. But there is a significant part of the GOP that certainly carries closeted racism, especially the tea party wing.
Part of the GOP simply disrespects obama. Don't deny it. When obama was elected, republicans started to say "take our country back" as a slogan for the 2012 election campaign. Take our country back from whom? Are you suggesting a non-American is sitting in the white house? Who is controlling the white house such that we have to "take it back"? It doesn't sound like racism to white americans, but to minorities and whites who have experienced racism or know enough about it can tell. The GOP needs to marginalize its extreme elements and become center-right enough to become a legitimate opposition to democrats or else the left is just going to run amok without an alternative to keep it in check.
I mean, I guess I can see how it could be perceived that way, but it might be a little oversensitive on the racial undertones considering they could just as easily mean take our country back from the democrats or from this terrible president who happens to be black...I won't deny that part of the GOP simply disrespects Obama, just as you shouldn't deny that Bush was at least as disrespected (some might even argue more). Basically I'm still leaning more towards the birther movement took off more as a protest to the President and anyone racist that has to do with the movement is correlation without causation.
OK, name a president who was ever heckled by a member of Congress during his State of the Union Address.
That's the level of disrespect the right have for Obama. Even during the worst of GWB's presidency, at least the left let the man have his legally-mandated speech without disrespect.
On November 12 2012 04:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
Both parties have probably moved a little further from the center. The difference is that the outer fringe has gained strength in the GOP (ultra-conservatives) whereas the ultra-left fringe liberals have not.
We've seen quite a few times in the past few years where a moderate republican has gotten knocked out of a house or senate seat by a more extreme conservative. Shortly thereafter a democrat wins the seat, even though the democrat wouldn't have been able to unearth the original moderate Republican.
*sigh* We're so weird. It's like, voters say, "We want all the traditional conservatism that we're assuming by your name, but... you have to pass liberal policies." I...what? X-D
No. In the primaries, far right people are the ones most likely to vote and get involved, so often the extreme right wing candidates that get the GOP nomination are not what the voters want, this is shown when they're beat by moderate democrats in normally republican districts. Overall the people want moderate candidates.
ding ding, the US has always preferred moderates and over the years that shifts slowly to the left or right and back again. Anyways some seats this year just come off idiots talking about rape when more women vote then men in the US. Akin, mourdock, smith all lost off taking a social conservative stance and then burning bridges by speaking outta their ass, wider would probably have lose too if Idaho was voting this year.
True. Akin at least, I can confirm, had it coming ever since his "legitimate rape" comment. There was zero recovery for him after that. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, it's sad 'cause he's a very honest dude and appears very consistent with his principles (even if his "science" is pretty stupid), which is far more than I can say positively for MOST politicians.
Americans may overall vote moderately, but it boggles my mind how far-left crazies politicians like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi win their elections so convincingly time after time.
On November 12 2012 04:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
Both parties have probably moved a little further from the center. The difference is that the outer fringe has gained strength in the GOP (ultra-conservatives) whereas the ultra-left fringe liberals have not.
We've seen quite a few times in the past few years where a moderate republican has gotten knocked out of a house or senate seat by a more extreme conservative. Shortly thereafter a democrat wins the seat, even though the democrat wouldn't have been able to unearth the original moderate Republican.
*sigh* We're so weird. It's like, voters say, "We want all the traditional conservatism that we're assuming by your name, but... you have to pass liberal policies." I...what? X-D
No. In the primaries, far right people are the ones most likely to vote and get involved, so often the extreme right wing candidates that get the GOP nomination are not what the voters want, this is shown when they're beat by moderate democrats in normally republican districts. Overall the people want moderate candidates.
ding ding, the US has always preferred moderates and over the years that shifts slowly to the left or right and back again. Anyways some seats this year just come off idiots talking about rape when more women vote then men in the US. Akin, mourdock, smith all lost off taking a social conservative stance and then burning bridges by speaking outta their ass, wider would probably have lose too if Idaho was voting this year.
True. Akin at least, I can confirm, had it coming ever since his "legitimate rape" comment. There was zero recovery for him after that. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, it's sad 'cause he's a very honest dude and appears very consistent with his principles (even if his "science" is pretty stupid), which is far more than I can say positively for MOST politicians.
Americans may overall vote moderately, but it boggles my mind how far-left crazies politicians like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi win their elections so convincingly time after time.
Not any more so then very conservation republicans winning conservative states, i mean pelosi comes off california which altough has a strong republican base in the valley and the north it doesn't have that much hold in the cities and reid comes off nevada which although may have fiscal conservatives they are strong social liberals there.
Allen West is a black man, and a Tea Party favorite. Herman Cain was a Tea Party favorite, and is black. Mia Love is black, and again, a Tea Party favorite.
hell yeah we disrespect Obama. respect is earned, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of most conservatives, Obama has done nothing to earn our respect.
Yeah well, there you go again. Political disagreement is different from personal respect. You're just reaffirming what I just wrote, you know that? Saying that the GOP isn't racist because it has black politicians is like the common knee-jerk response saying "I'm not racist because I have black friends". Simply having black or minority members in the GOP or its tea party isn't justification that elements of the tea party and the GOP are not racist. Do you know why the GOP got their asses handed to them in this general election? They moved too far to the right and they don't show any signs of being more inclusive.
you might be able to point to one or two signs that one or two Tea Party people carried that could actually be construed as racist (not doctored photographs)
When conservatives talk like this, they are just being in denial over the state of their party. Until people admit that there are republicans who are bringing inappropriate discourse into political discussion, until you admit that protesting over obama's birthplace is laughably ridiculous, and until people in the GOP marginalize the tea party and other excess elements, the general public is not going to see republicans as a decent alternative to the democrats. Like I said, the GOP today is too far right, and you're being great evidence for me. GOP got burned in this election for a reason.
there can be nothing more dishonest that suggesting that someone is racist, and then ignoring all indications of them being inclusive to all races. it's a catch-22. either we deny the charges without "evidence", and are ignored, or we provide the evidence and we are called racist for trying to provide evidence.
so you've abandoned your original position and are now moving toward the "Republicans are too right-wing" argument? already had that argument in here, and I'm not interested in rehashing it.
So you believe the GOP of today has not moved to the right in recent years?
hmm... maybe a little in some ways, less in others. of course, you'd have to realize that the Republican party went through a phase of shifting pretty far to the left. Eisenhower, for example, would probably be a pretty left-wing Democrat right now. he was clearly not a Coolidge Republican. parties shift back and forth as the times go. Democrats used to be the states-rights party and it was Republicans (and their predecessors) that pushed for more federal control.
most GOP politicians support the existence of Social Security. 150 years ago, the idea of that policy would have sent both parties into fits of apoplexy
Seems like Republicans might win more often if they just changed a lot of their social agenda, because fiscal conservatism is pretty common sense at times and is pretty appealing to a lot of people in this current economic climate.
The only problem is Republicans get this bad rep for being xenophobic/racist/homophobic rich people, which a lot of times isn't even the case. It just feels like trying to defend the institution of marriage and having such hard right positions on immigration and even abortion is really hurting them.
Not to mention the figureheads in the party aren't very good figureheads, so I hope young fresh Republican faces can take over the party soon because some people that are leading the party just come off as assholes that you wouldn't want to associate yourself with ever.
Didn't realize this until Bill Kristol of all people said it.
Kritol added, “Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama,” the conservative pundit explained. “It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it’s a fact. Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate. The president is in good shape. … I think there will be a big budget deal. It will be an Obama budget deal much more than a Paul Ryan-type budget deal. Elections have consequences.”
On November 12 2012 06:08 XoXiDe wrote: Didn't realize this until Bill Kristol of all people said it.
Kritol added, “Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama,” the conservative pundit explained. “It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it’s a fact. Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate. The president is in good shape. … I think there will be a big budget deal. It will be an Obama budget deal much more than a Paul Ryan-type budget deal. Elections have consequences.”
Thank God, both Kristol and Brooks have given me hope that at least some Republicans are changing their tune.
On November 12 2012 06:08 XoXiDe wrote: Didn't realize this until Bill Kristol of all people said it.
Kritol added, “Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama,” the conservative pundit explained. “It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it’s a fact. Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate. The president is in good shape. … I think there will be a big budget deal. It will be an Obama budget deal much more than a Paul Ryan-type budget deal. Elections have consequences.”
Thank God, both Kristol and Brooks have given me hope that at least some Republicans are changing their tune.
Oh I really like David Brooks even as a fairly liberal person, Shields & Brooks on Friday on PBS, best 15 minutes of tv each week for me.
On November 12 2012 06:08 XoXiDe wrote: Didn't realize this until Bill Kristol of all people said it.
Kritol added, “Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama,” the conservative pundit explained. “It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it’s a fact. Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate. The president is in good shape. … I think there will be a big budget deal. It will be an Obama budget deal much more than a Paul Ryan-type budget deal. Elections have consequences.”
I had hopes that Obama might accomplish something in his second term, but since Bill Kristol said he would, and everything he says is wrong, I guess there's no chance of it happening
On November 12 2012 06:07 Zergneedsfood wrote: Seems like Republicans might win more often if they just changed a lot of their social agenda, because fiscal conservatism is pretty common sense at times and is pretty appealing to a lot of people in this current economic climate.
the problem with this is that we cannot drop the social conservatives, who would definitely break off and form another party if the GOP dropped social conservatism.
also, as a social conservative, I can tell you that most of us feel as though we have a moral duty to push for these policies and to not compromise on them. the fact is that fiscal conservatism is not nearly so popular as the people in this thread want to think it is (as evidenced by their wild insistence against even the most moderate fiscally conservative positions) and social conservatism is not so unpopular as they think.
a very large portion of blacks do not approve of gay marriage (49% I believe). a large portion of Hispanics don't approve of legal abortion, possibly even a majority (not sure about that one, I'll look it up). liberals and conservatives both tend to put their own bias onto other people, but the fact is that the American people are usually right in the center on all these issues. Democrats don't, contrary to the opinion of most in this thread, represent that center any more than Republicans do, especially on social issues.
On November 12 2012 06:07 Zergneedsfood wrote: Seems like Republicans might win more often if they just changed a lot of their social agenda, because fiscal conservatism is pretty common sense at times and is pretty appealing to a lot of people in this current economic climate.
the problem with this is that we cannot drop the social conservatives, who would definitely break off and form another party if the GOP dropped social conservatism.
This is why we need parliamentary system, or runoff voting, or something dear god anything but this duopoly
On November 12 2012 06:07 Zergneedsfood wrote: Seems like Republicans might win more often if they just changed a lot of their social agenda, because fiscal conservatism is pretty common sense at times and is pretty appealing to a lot of people in this current economic climate.
the problem with this is that we cannot drop the social conservatives, who would definitely break off and form another party if the GOP dropped social conservatism.
also, as a social conservative, I can tell you that most of us feel as though we have a moral duty to push for these policies and to not compromise on them. the fact is that fiscal conservatism is not nearly so popular as the people in this thread want to think it is (as evidenced by their wild insistence against even the most moderate fiscally conservative positions) and social conservatism is not so unpopular as they think.
a very large portion of blacks do not approve of gay marriage (49% I believe). a large portion of Hispanics don't approve of legal abortion, possibly even a majority (not sure about that one, I'll look it up). liberals and conservatives both tend to put their own bias onto other people, but the fact is that the American people are usually right in the center on all these issues. Democrats don't, contrary to the opinion of most in this thread, represent that center any more than Republicans do, especially on social issues.
A very large portion is still a minority fyi.
The times are changing and more and more people will accept gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, etc and not force their beliefs on others and let people decide their own lives.
i'd say you are being overly pessimistic over the usefulness of the democratic party.
as things stand now, it is advantageous to have the republicans swallow the poison pill of the religious/nativist right. the harder they get crushed the better chance for real reform in america. so toxic and captured is the ideology economically on the right, the only 'engagement' is squashing it.
now, im not saying all leftist policies are good. they'll probably do a number on economic efficiency and competitiveness if not looked at carefully. however, i don't see the populist pressure on the left as that big of a problem. most of the people just want to do some clearly needed reforms (like medical cost and leaky tax code), and there is no holy war against "business" in general.
The problem with the GOP and social conservatism is that it clashes with a small government message, get government out of our lives/wallet doesn't flow well with government controlling who you are. To that end the social conservative message is the left over during the states rights era to which they can be for government control because they were for decentralized government not necessarily small government. So you get people who agree with their economics but have to disagree with the overall platform due to the rise of the religious right. This is esp true in strongly democratic states to which a conservative economics still has a hold but they have issues with social conservatives and people have a hard time defending the overall platform of the GOP so the resister as an independent.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9cp0jvui76k/UH8WYyWmDYI/AAAAAAABBtM/u0fNfuEGC8U/s1600/Obama-Renig-Sticker.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/a/img715/1715/whitewe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Maryland.jpeg)
.![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l8xeX8k9lgo/SFEb14IoS0I/AAAAAAAADA8/j2sXO6OKfy8/s400/baby+mama+highlighted.jpg)
