frrostedman wrote:There is a huge difference between "racist" and "anti-American", by the way. Just about the entire Democratic party is proudly anti-American. They hate what this country has stood for the last 60 years and they want to change it. They hate Capitalism, despise anyone with wealth (besides themselves), and believe that the Constitution is a "living document" that needs to be updated. And I could go on but you get the point.
Now, this isn't to say that no Republicans are anti-American but generally speaking the Republican platform is about smaller government and more individual responsibility which is in line with the Constitution, i.e. America. I won't mention Bush in the "generally speaking" group, as government grew in record amounts during his administration. But O'Bama is taking it even further so who knows when that will end.
But I digress... anti-American--which today is not something to be ashamed of depending on who you talk to--is nothing compared to bona fide racism which is a blind hatred for an entire race for no valid reason.
What a crock. Supporting a company's right to fire all of it's American factory employees, and shipping their jobs off to Korea or Indonesia, THAT is anti-American. That is what Capitalism has become, money first, stockholders second, and America and it's people last. Nothing wrong with making a buck, but at what costs should that buck be allowed to be made? You put limitations on freedom of speech, you acknowledge that there comes a responsibility with it, at least when it comes to criticism of things you support... But with unemployment above 9%, and tons of American companies having thousands of factories around the world producing products to be sold back to Americans, over 9% of whom are jobless, you don't think there is a responsibility on corporate America's part to bring the jobs home?
If the constitution wasn't a living document, blacks would still be slaves, women would still be unable to vote, and people you'd likely vote for wouldn't be able to even think about making an amendment stating who can and can't get married.
Maybe the founding fathers didn't envision a future that included gay men and women getting married, but no more than they saw corporate greed leading to American jobs being sent off to foreign countries at the expense of American families to save a buck, in which case the multibillion dollar corporation wins, the foreign country wins, and Americans get a stiffy up the ass.
And I am by no stretch of your imagination a Neo Con.