IMDb forums is the gift that keep on giving.

 Take a look here.

According to some IMDb posters  Selma isn't registering well, audience rating wise, because of racism and a fictitious thing called a "liberal agenda." Here's what they had to say:

The average IMDb is a middle-class white fanboy who doesn't care about social issues and resents any film that steals the thunder from the latest Nolan geekfest, hence their hatred towards Selma. Many of them are also right-of-centre and possibly resent the coverage of the police killings of black men and see Selma as part of some 'liberal agenda' to make them face up to their own privileges.

and (by poster zombieDANCE)

 I laugh because this is probably true.

and (by poster ibaaaaaad)

Racists always troll the black-centric movies without seeing them. Not worth reading into.

I doubt many have heard of this movie, Selma, so allegations for middle white class down voting it is rather ridiculous. 
 
Now it's interesting that both poster zombieDANCE and ibaaaaaad are homosexuals. The zombie guy practically talks in cliches (the guy's is indignant beyond belief) and ibaaaaad is a Muslim, if I'm not mistaken, who isn't as pathetic as zombieDANCE but still has his moments of "well that's just racist!" And he doesn't like the late President Reagan because of how he handled AIDS.Well, if your fellow "love is love"/You-just-help-who-you-fall-in-love-with" peeps wouldn't part take in anal sex and carpet eating (though not a way of getting AIDS, but still) you wouldn't have such a big problem with this horrible disease. Go figure.

"But I lo - "
"It ain't love."

Gotta love Yahoo! Answers.

A response to "Why do some liberals support the murder of children but hate war?" (written in 2008).

Nice try, but Liberals (and the rest of the pro-choice crowd) don't 'Support the Murder of Children', they simply believe that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.

Illegalizing it won't stop it - because if a girl or woman wants an abortion, they will get it someplace, or end up using a coathanger. If it were up the pro-life crowd, even a woman who had been raped would be forced to give birth to the rapists baby. They would also require a woman with medical problems that could possibly be fatal to give birth.

I am not a woman, nor have I ever impregnated a woman other than my wife, who gave birth to our beautiful baby girl who is going to turn 8 in May. Neither of us ever considered aborting it for a second. I would hope that no woman should ever have to make that decision, and I definitely do not support using it as a form of birth control.

It doesn't affect me, nor does it affect you. All of this 'but what if your parents had chosen abortion' crap is a null and void argument.

Now, meanwhile - war is a necessary evil. There are times when there is no other choice but to authorize the use of force against another country or group of people. This is what was done before the US went into Iraq. There was never a declaration of war (which shoots a few holes in the preznits 'wartime power' claims). Going into Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein may have been a noble cause, however the pathetic way in which the aftermath has been handled and the rampant corruption and cronyism will haunt some members of this administration for years to come.

There was an election last fall - and the people spoke. Dubya and his pals need oversight. Badly.

So far Dubya and Co. are still acting like they have a mandate. It will please me greatly to watch them fall one by one, and as they turn on each other.

Though six years old, I think the same defense still stands amongst those who do support abortion. Abortion is given a noble name change: Pro-choice. Let's hide "I support abortion" because rarely, in my experience, has anyone said "I support motherhood." And don't forget the rape fallacy. Rare? I'm too lazy to look up accurate numbers, but I'd wager that rare isn't really "rare" but more common. Dubya's admin hasn't turned on each other, yet; Obama's on the other hand ...

This is my favorite -

Why would you spend your time baiting liberals, rather than finding solutions that work for everyone? Just because they place their priorities on different aspects of the same problems you face, doesn't make them the enemy. Political parties are not sports teams- the only way one can win is if both win. Mindlessly arguing with emotional rhetoric isn't going to change any minds, and you know it. Why waste time dividing the country further?

A Straw Man argument is a type of logical fallacy, used to derail the topic by putting the other side on the defensive. The best you can hope for in employing such a tactic is a tie; because it forces you off topic too. Do you ever want to get anything done, or do you simply enjoy trolling for unproductive arguments?

 Oh. Dear. Lord.

Oh.
Dear.
Lord.

The poster that plays the moderate card and later resorts to fallacy cards. I guess if a straw man argument is a fallacy that puts the opposite side on the defensive (which it's not) then every person on trial should be let go. High school debate teams should cease to exist. Logic - ahem - should not be allowed. Everyone should win because ties don't ever determine a winner; we're all winners. Also, not sure how a tie was in anyway productive because sooner or later one of the opposite sides takes control. It's like how objectivism is touted like it's actually a state of mind when it's not. Trying to be objective is more like it.

There are other brain grenade answers directed at the question, so if you're up for it click on the link.