Republican, Democrat, or Redneck?

Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You’re walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic
terrorist with a huge knife comes
around the corner, locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.

You have mere seconds
before he reaches you and your family. What
do you do?  



Democrat’s Answer:

Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that
would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What a bout the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club
and knockthe knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about
this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message
does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he’d be
happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would
he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold
on, could my
family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call
9-1-1?    Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have
paint and weed day and
make this happier, healthier street that
would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to
debate this with
some friends for few days and try to come to a


Republican’s Answer:



Redneck’s Answer:

Click….. (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! Click
Daughter: ‘Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those
the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?’
Son: ‘Can I shoot the next one?’
Wife: ‘You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist.’

Sorry guys, I couldn’t resist!


08/28/08 Denver, CO ( – The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has a message for pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama before he gives his acceptance speech tonight. Dr. Alveda King tells that her uncle would have strongly opposed the destruction of human life under the kind of unlimited abortions Obama supports.

Obama’s speech has been hailed by the media because he is the first African-American nominee of a major political party and because it comes on the 45th anniversary of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Alveda King called her uncle “a man of great compassion, and a man of non-violence.”

“He once said, ‘The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety,’” she added.

King said her uncle would understand that to include the destruction of unborn children.

I know in my heart that if Uncle Martin were alive today, he would join with me in the greatest civil rights struggle of this generation – the recognition of the unborn child’s basic right to life,” she told

“My uncle Martin would agree that we cannot end poverty, hunger, or suffering by killing those who might suffer,” she explained. “We cannot claim to guarantee equal rights if we deny the rights of the helpless. And we cannot feign ignorance of the fact that those who are torn apart, crushed, or left to die on an abortionist’s table are just as human as we are.”

“My uncle said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” Alveda continued.

“There is injustice in our land. We have turned being unwanted into a crime penalized by death. Today, I echo the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – let freedom ring. From every mountain top, let freedom ring for all Americans, wanted and unwanted, born and unborn,” she added.

Obama has repeatedly come under fire for his pro-abortion positions — including a litmus test on Supreme Court judges to keep abortions legal another 35 years and wanting taxpayers to fund abortions.

He has also been criticized for opposing a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have provided medical care for newborns who survive botched abortions.


Media Bias

According to the Pew Research Center, journalists are more than twice as likely to lean to the left than the average American citizen. And even those who consider them selves “moderates” are more likely to agree with more liberal social ideas. One example was that journalists were considerably more willing to say that society should accept homosexuality than the average citizen was.
Another study has 48% of respondents saying that they have heard too much about Obama, while only 26% say they have heard too much about John McCain, and 38% say they want to hear more about the Republican Candidate. Also, when asked which presidential candidate they have heard the most about in the news over the last week or so, 76% of the public names Barack Obama while just one-in-ten (11%) recalls John McCain. As many Republicans (76%) as Democrats (80%) cite Obama as the candidate they have heard most about in the news recently.
The same study shows that stories about Democratic candidates accounted for nearly 70% of the total news during the study’s time frame, while less than 20 % of the stories were about the GOP candidates. Individually among the candidates, Obama led with about 70%, Clinton was second with close to 60%,and John McCain in last with a little under 30%.
But despite Obama’s media exposure, many Americans still do not have a clear understanding of where he stands on the issues. Public awareness of Obama’s policy positions has increased modestly over the past month. Still, fewer than half (48%) know a lot or a fair amount about his foreign policy positions, while 51% say they know just some or very little. Somewhat more people (56%) know at least a fair amount about Obama’s economic positions, while 44% know just some or very little.

The Hollywood Effect

As evidenced by the mostly positive reaction from the stars gathered at the VMA’s last week, Barrack Obama has the Hollywood vote. But is this a good thing? On the one hand, it is quite obvious that celebrity endorsements hold a lot of sway with young voters, but on the other, Hollywood is known for cranking out troubled stars at an alarming rate. If a known alcoholic, anorexic, or druggie endorses a politician, should we feel confident in listening to them? After all stars are not famous for their intellect, but rather for their appearance.

On a secondary note, I was rather perplexed by Matt Damon’s attack on Sarah Palin. Not only did he show the Democratic elitism when he called it ridiculous that a simple hockey-mom (and GOVERNOR!!) could possibly have the chance to become President, but he also attacked her religious beliefs.

I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago.
That’s an important — I want to know that, I really do, because she’s going
have the nuclear codes. You know, I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs
here 4000 years ago… we can’t, we can’t have that.

This confused me greatly, because Obama claims to be Christian, and this is a common Christian belief. Yet I have not heard anyone mocking Obama, or Binden or McCain for that matter, for holding this belief. So why is Matt Damon blasting Palin for this?
My humble opinion is that liberals are so desperate to smear Palin that they are willing to go to any lengths to discredit her. They seem to latch on to, and spin, anything and everything they can.
In this thread, the most recent thing I have come across, is the terrifying assertion that Palin personally made rape victims pay for their own rape kits. This report alarmed me, but with a little research, it is clear that this is yet another attempt by the left to twist facts to their advantage. Upon completing my research on the matter, I had found that, yes the CITY of Wasilla, Alaska did not offer free rape kits. But Sarah Palin did not make a law regarding this, and there was no controversy over it at the time. Apparently it was a practice the city had taken part in for some time, citing a lack of funds necessary to provide this service free of charge.
The assertion that the victims had to pay is especially misleading. The Police Chief, who was directly in charge of this, said that the City charged the insurance companies of the victims, and that they usually tacked this expense onto the restitution phase of sentencing the offender. If the victim could not pay, the hospital wrote the cost off, like it does in soo many instances of other services given that cannot be paid for.
So to conclude, Palin did not charge for this, the Police billed insurance, no victim was required to pay out of pocket.