Are these "radical" or "racist" positions?

Question

Eliminate Excessive Taxes
Eliminate the National Debt
Eliminate Deficit Spending
Protect Free Markets
Abide by the Constitution of the United States
Promote Civic Responsibility
Reduce the Overall Size of Government
Believe in the People
Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
Maintain Local Independence

Answer 1

Radical or racist you ask? Hell no! That's what our government's supposed to look like. Except Obama has made it his goal to eliminate the constitution.

Answer 2

Eliminate Excessive Taxes (define "excessive")
Eliminate the National Debt (this is unsophisticated - anybody that understands modern economics knows deficits are just an accounting practice that is not automatically a negative - treasury bonds are one of the largest forms of 'debt' but they are always in high demand and the practice stimulates an economy - what you really mean is you want to eliminate debt that produces no constructive result... either that or your comprehension of economics is vulgar, simplistic, unsophisticated and dangerous)
Eliminate Deficit Spending (see previous article)
Protect Free Markets (this is a meaningless hollow sentiment)
Abide by the Constitution of the United States (umm... okay, yeah, that is precisely what we do when we elect legislators then they legislate)
Promote Civic Responsibility (another meaningless hollow sentiment -- what are you suggesting? Collectivization? My first impulsive guess it that is not what you are suggesting so how about speaking to me in common direct terms instead of vague euphemism, okay?)
Reduce the Overall Size of Government (again, vague, indirect, suggestive euphemism)
Believe in the People (sigh...)
Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics (groan...)
Maintain Local Independence (...)

YES, this is all very "radical" because it is so imprecise, indirect, dishonest and incoherent (and that probably means it's racist as well). This is the way nazis talk; sentimentally appealing jargon and euphemism festooned with flowery embellishment that ultimately conveys nothing of any coherent substance. You probably can't even translate any of this tripe into any practical application and what it probably all really means is that you want to kill the people you consider subhuman but don't have the courage to say so aloud.

Answer 3

i do no longer do tutor rides, yet a good rider will flow their hips with the saddle. every person that tells you diverse would not be responsive to the thank you to journey. Nor might squeezing continuously along with your thighs be suitable on a real path journey. could desire to you think of retaining that up for certainly one of our sixteen mile rides? as some distance because of the fact the quantity of weight interior the stirrups, properly it relies upon on the gait like others reported. A trot demands extra weight on the stirrup than the walk. even nonetheless the marshmallow element is nonsense.

Answer 4

Both.

"Radical" because your points oppose the socialist agenda:

1/11/44, democrat FDR’s Address to Congress: “We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights...”
His new “rights” list included:
-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
-The right of every family to a decent home
-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

Decades before FDR came out of the closet with his socialism another democrat president, Woodrow Wilson almost did, saying: “You are not here merely to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world. You impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.”
Wilson may have been the founder of the perverse notion of "multiculturalism," saying: “No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon any other nation.”

Today we know that democrats favor socialism over our Constitution:
-2/4/10 Gallup poll: 61% of liberals have a positive view of socialism.
-6/2/11 Gallup poll: 71% of democrats favor re-distributing wealth.

"Racist" because socialism relies on the support of minorities -- who receive the greatest portion, by ratio, of our tax dollars -- and opposing socialism is tatamount to depriving them of their living: therefore, we want them to die and are...racists. At least that's how all the Sharptons, Jacksons, Pelosi's, Obama's, Fondas and Penns see it.

Answer 5

No they are sound economic and moral principals which are great as a foundation

Answer 6

Are these racial or radical.
caring for the sick
caring for the children's education
feeding those out of work
making sure we all have jobs
generosity and kindness
paying your fair share
taking care of the safety net
or how about just an all around country that's wanting the rich to stop hording all the wealth.
Is that too radical?

Answer 7

Answer me this...

As long as it is you (American pensioners/investors) who are making profits you say slavery is good... Right?




The Doctor is in…

Thumbs down-ers, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Anarchists, Communists and Marxists are mentally unstable people who need help. Constructive ridicule optional…

My posting of TRUTH is my “Intervention Therapy Program” for them... My posting of truth allows them to get all their HATE out before they go out into their day...

Yes… Of course… It is always my pleasure to help the mentally afflicted among us here…

Good Liberals... (((((((Pat Pat Pat on their Hate filled heads))))))

Sign me... Dr. §† FNS †§
ǝɔuɐɹouƃıpuoʎǝqsıʍoןןoɟʎןpuıןqoʇ

Doctor of… "Think - Ology..."

Ooooh... And I am Humble too…

( I still ♥ you as one of God’s creatures...)

Answer 8

Racist? What. Why would these be Racist

Answer 9

According to our President..........Yes

Answer 10

all of the above would be considered racist by liberals.

I'm all for them myself.