Bachman: "Cervical Cancer Shot Caused Mental Retardation"

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Forgive us if we find it hard to parse her point, when the example she gave to back her point up was not at all related to the point you claim she was supporting. She said mandating the vaccine is irresponsible because of the dangers involved with this vaccine, and then sited a "mom" whose daughter is now retarded. That doesn't sound at all like a "freedom of choice" argument to me.

As for b.c.'s need for anger management? I think your assertion there is unfounded. I see no anger in his posts. I see no hate. I'm going to make my own assertion here and claim that you might just be projecting a little bit.

I'll admit she's right for the wrong reason. If she used the correct lingo people would have been on board.

She was just on Leno and say that the state shouldn't mandate vaccinations of HPV because girls will then think they are immune ot all STD's. This could be the single most retarded combination of words in the English language.


What she should have said is: no government should be able to mandate what is put in my body, period. That would fly with everyone.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Well then you'd agree that there is at least a basis for the criticism.

I don't think it's accurate to say that "the left" reserves venom for conservative women politicians. We've pretty much doled it out rather evenly male and female alike. And if any one candidate seems to get more than his or her fair share, that is solely because of the level of lunacy that comes from the candidate him or herself, I think.
We'll agree to disagree. I see the left as intentionally marginalizing females on the right.

When I first saw Bachmann, I thought well at least here is Republican candidate who seems to handle herself

Hell, I didn't even KNOW about the 58 plus two comment. :cool:

To be honest I cant stand her. Its the religious thing that drives me nuts. Is this 1950? "You girls get your bloomers on, er else!"

What do you think about that 58 states comment? I thought it took a pretty uninformed person to say that.
 

gwk158ill

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Posts
14
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
@EagleCowboy
Obvious disagreements aside, I LOL'd when I read this one.

FACT: Vaccines are far more dangerous than anything you can catch in the wild.
I'd like to personally encourage you to pay a visit to the jungles of the DRoC and play with the monkeys there. Once you've recovered from your ebola, I'd like to hear you say that again.

Oh... wait...

And speaking of ebola - there is no vaccine. If they (as you and the other crazies claim) don't actually prevent against the diseases (or actually cause them, oh no!) then how can anyone have any trouble creating them? You could fill a syringe full of anything (not obviously toxic) and call it a 'successful' vaccine. And you could develop those 'vaccines' inside an hour and have it ready for widespread distribution in days! /end_sarcasm

The Computer Wore Menace Shoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jenny McCarthy Body Count
 

gwk158ill

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Posts
14
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Just because I expect you might be the kind of guy to call me on a technicality: there technically are ebola vaccines, but they are impractical, in development, and not in distribution.

Other concerns:
Your (Well sourced; I applaud you. Misrepresented; you need to read deeper.) bullet point detailing 'adverse affects' reported by doctors is vague. An enormous percentage of that 54k+ would be people who got stiffness at the injection site, slight fevers, small headaches... etc...

As for your lists of outbreaks and deaths. In ALL cases, vaccines do not make you 'immune' to a disease. They improve your immunity: meaning your body reacts faster to fight off the (specific variation of the) disease. However, different vaccines are needed for different strains within the same virus (H1N1 is still influenza, but not preventable by regular flu vaccines). So, when one form of a virus is reduced or eliminated, some distinct alternate strains may be left to flourish.

Also, your disregard of the wikipedia post ignores the direct link citation within the post to a WHO article on the subject. The WHO is a credible source, unless you believe vaccines are part of a massive intergovernmental conspiracy... Which is even more crackpot than the 9/11 conspiracy nuts because you'd have to accept not only silence (which is a stretch) but also complicity and cooperation between all 193 member states of the UN. Kim Jong-Il and Ayatollah Khamenei are cooperating with the great satan on this one?

Then again, slowly poisoning the US population does seem to fit in with their agenda.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm not marginalizing conservative right-wing females. I'm only interested in marginalizing anyone, male or female, left or right, who has an inaccurate (false) and revisionist understanging of US History as well as unable to pronounce simple, comon Yiddish expressions.

Bachmann couldn't even get the events of Paul Revere's ride correct. Such a dull child.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
We'll agree to disagree. I see the left as intentionally marginalizing females on the right.



To be honest I cant stand her. Its the religious thing that drives me nuts. Is this 1950? "You girls get your bloomers on, er else!"

What do you think about that 58 states comment? I thought it took a pretty uninformed person to say that.

What do I think of it?? A verbal gaffe, I'd imagine. Certainly she'd know how many states there are.

I am less bothered by this sort of thing than I am by what ideology is in the hearts and minds of these individuals, or more precisely, what "makes them tick".

Here's what Morgan Freeman thinks:

Morgan Freeman: Tea Party 'a racist thing' - Entertainment - Celebrities - TODAY.com

I'm not too sure I completely agree with him. But certainly the core philosophy of the party and many if not most of their followers are (and have been since Obama's election) driven by something other than mere political philosophical differences.

Their efforts and goals have been nothing short of a conspiracy to undermine the Presidency.

And that's a fact, Jack. :cool:
 
Last edited:

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Their efforts and goals have been nothing short of a conspiracy to undermine the Presidency.

That's for sure, and thanks to the help of our wonderful corporate media reporting on every sneeze the President makes, they have been hugely successful
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
I'm not marginalizing conservative right-wing females. I'm only interested in marginalizing anyone, male or female, left or right, who has an inaccurate (false) and revisionist understanging of US History as well as unable to pronounce simple, comon Yiddish expressions.

Bachmann couldn't even get the events of Paul Revere's ride correct. Such a dull child.

You see the one where she said Abraham Lincoln started the Republican party?
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
I'm not too sure I completely agree with him. But certainly the core philosophy of the party and many if not most of their followers are (and have been since Obama's election) driven by something other than mere political philosophical differences.

Their efforts and goals have been nothing short of a conspiracy to undermine the Presidency.

What would drive them? They explain that his policies are horrid (which they are), they explain that this president is forcing his Socialist agenda down the throat of an unwilling populace, but you still say ..... "well, there is sooomething else." This is the left not being able to deal with ideas. They can't confront the reality of Socialism: it won't work.

Morgan Freeman is absolutely ridiculous.

When the left was hell bent on getting G.W. out of office, was that racism? No. It was policy. The left thought they could do better and Bush had to go. Now that Obama has made us all long for the prosperous days of G.W., the left wants to say the Tea Party is all racist.

To be racist you must act racist. The presidents race has nothing to do with anything, except that a lot of people voted for him because he's black; which is, by definition, racism. I'm sure all who did will justify their racism, just as it has been done for centuries, and injustice and hate will continue.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
To be racist you must act racist.

Absolutely correct. You can't accuse people of being racist towards Obama just because they disagree with his policies. To be racist, they would have to do things like represent him as a monkey, or a pimp, or an African tribesman with a bone in his nose.

And of course, none of them has ever . . .

Oh wait.

The presidents race has nothing to do with anything, except that a lot of people voted for him because he's black; which is, by definition, racism.

You want to talk racism? No black man before Obama could possibly have been nominated, let alone elected, president. Every presidential election in this country's history has been, by definition, racist.

But only *now* do complain about it. And why?

Think about it. There's a word for it.

I'm sure all who did will justify their racism, just as it has been done for centuries, and injustice and hate will continue.

When a black man finally becomes president, somehow that's "injustice and hate."

As for all the racist injustice throughout the centuries, show me the post you wrote *before* Obama's election where you complained about it.

Go ahead. I'll wait.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
What would drive them? They explain that his policies are horrid (which they are), they explain that this president is forcing his Socialist agenda down the throat of an unwilling populace, but you still say ..... "well, there is sooomething else." This is the left not being able to deal with ideas. They can't confront the reality of Socialism: it won't work.

Morgan Freeman is absolutely ridiculous.

When the left was hell bent on getting G.W. out of office, was that racism? No. It was policy. The left thought they could do better and Bush had to go. Now that Obama has made us all long for the prosperous days of G.W., the left wants to say the Tea Party is all racist.

To be racist you must act racist. The presidents race has nothing to do with anything, except that a lot of people voted for him because he's black; which is, by definition, racism. I'm sure all who did will justify their racism, just as it has been done for centuries, and injustice and hate will continue.

Well it's funny you'd use the term "socialist" because, assuming you know your civil rights era history, bigots and segregationists frequently called African American civil rights leaders (hell, leaders...all of us) "socialists" but if you think about it, this administration is no more "socialist" than the Clinton administration (for instance, he also tried to pass healthcare reform). In fact most economists and political analysts would characterize Obama as more of a centrist. But (for reasons fairly obvious) the "socialist" card continues to be slung about.

Programs of assistance to Americans in time of need is no new concept. Such programs have helped bring America out of the Great Depression. So now they're inherently evil? Socialist?

No. this is terminology and code wording propagated by bigots. That you too would use it suggests that you have bought into the propaganda, at least. Nor would I exactly call the days of G.W. "prosperous". For whom? Bankers getting fat bailouts after knowingly making bad loans?? I guess THAT shit wasn't socialist, right?

Also curious that you suggest it's not racist to want him out of office (and I'd agree, if the hate based rhetoric was based on policy alone... it isn't), but in the same sentence, you suggest that it IS racist to want him in office. WTF??? A predictably typical characterization though: people who vote for black candidates do so because of the candidate's race. How "right" of you.

Your ASSumption that a lot of people voted for him because he's black is a piss poor one at best. Fact is, there's a black candidate running for the Republican nod. I'd never vote for him, because of the platform and policies of the party he's affiliated with. (Party affiliation be damned, nor would any Republican vote for him... apparently... shhhhh... don't tell him. He doesn't know.)

People who voted Obama don't have to justify jack shit, thankee very much. He was clearly the best choice. And given the field running against him, and the twisted ideology of their ultra conservative Tea Party backers, he still is.

Heaven help us all if any of those f**ks should gain the Presidency. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Absolutely correct. You can't accuse people of being racist towards Obama just because they disagree with his policies. To be racist, they would have to do things like represent him as a monkey, or a pimp, or an African tribesman with a bone in his nose.

And of course, none of them has ever . . .

Oh wait.
First: Obama's dad was a Kenyan. There is nothing shameful or wrong with being proud of his African heritage. Only liberals find it insulting because they would be offended if someone said that of them; they see it as being less than a white person. I'm proud of my people that used to walk around in loin cloths, and hunt with sticks.

Romney, Pual, or Bachman said "Obama is a monkey that walks around with a bone in his nose"? Didn't think so. Not only that, the Tea Party NEVER said that. Are there racist members? Yes. There are racists everywhere. Is the organization racist because a few of its members are racist? Absolutely not. Do you like to call Tea Party members racist because it makes you feel superior? Uh huh.



You want to talk racism? No black man before Obama could possibly have been nominated, let alone elected, president. Every presidential election in this country's history has been, by definition, racist.

But only *now* do complain about it. And why?

Think about it. There's a word for it.
I never once said that previous elections were fair. Not once. You should go find where I said that. Not only that, it isn't a tenant of the Tea Party that all elections before this one were fair. You aren't proving your point here, son.

The point stands: people voting for a person based on the color of their skin is racist. I'm glad you finally see the racism which is so abundant in the Democrat party. It would be fantastic if we could elect based exclusively on merit. Americans, as are all humans, are stupid creatures. They want the president to look "presidential," and he must be young-ish and good looking-ish.

Ultimately you conclude that its racist to point out when Democrats are being racist. Amazing. That is flat out amazing.


When a black man finally becomes president, somehow that's "injustice and hate."
I don't even need to be here. You are proving my point. Racism is just fine when it suits your purpose. When it hurts a white/hispanic/asian/whatever man that is perfectly fine. Why? The ends have justified the means.

As for all the racist injustice throughout the centuries, show me the post you wrote *before* Obama's election where you complained about it.

Go ahead. I'll wait.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to wait for shit. I've been an equalitarian since I was old enough to know what one was. There is no gain in your racist system. One race benefits over the other, then there is retribution and the other race benefits over others. Its a painful cycle that your party exploits to benefit them at the ballot box. Everyone who isn't an equalitarian should be absolutely ashamed of themself. You aren't one.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Well it's funny you'd use the term "socialist" because, assuming you know your civil rights era history, bigots and segregationists frequently called African American civil rights leaders (hell, leaders...all of us) "socialists" but if you think about it, this administration is no more "socialist" than the Clinton administration (for instance, he also tried to pass healthcare reform). In fact most economists and political analysts would characterize Obama as more of a centrist. But (for reasons fairly obvious) the "socialist" card continues to be slung about.
That claim is made up. Nobody would classify Obama as a centrist. Not only that, his stated policy positions put him firmly on the left of the economic continuum.

Programs of assistance to Americans in time of need is no new concept. Such programs have helped bring America out of the Great Depression. So now they're inherently evil? Socialist?
Don't act as though the left has some monopoly on helping people. The majority of leftist programs are centered on getting reelected or giving tax payer money to their friends. On top of that, for leftists good intentions trump bad results. Never mind that you can track an unbelievable amount of bad results directly to socialist ideology, they think their intentions are what count. They aren't.

No. this is terminology and code wording propagated by bigots. That you too would use it suggests that you have bought into the propaganda, at least. Nor would I exactly call the days of G.W. "prosperous". For whom? Bankers getting fat bailouts after knowingly making bad loans?? I guess THAT shit wasn't socialist, right?
Unemployment under G.W. for the 8 years he was in offce was ~5.2%. Compared to the golden days of socialism that we are currently experiencing, they were very prosperous. I'd like to point out that Obama furthered the bailouts, and bailed out all kinds of other people, too. Don't forget, the Democrats controlled both houses when that happened, and had to pass that legislation.
I like how you presume that I am going to defend G.W.. That is amusing to me. G.W. lost his focus in his last two years. He literally threw this country to the wolves with his/Democrats big spending mania.
Also curious that you suggest it's not racist to want him out of office (and I'd agree, if the hate based rhetoric was based on policy alone... it isn't)
Feel free to prove that the Tea Party is

1) Hate based, not based on sound policy like less government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.
2) Based on racism.
Have at it.
, but in the same sentence, you suggest that it IS racist to want him in office. WTF??? A predictably typical characterization though: people who vote for black candidates do so because of the candidate's race. How "right" of you.
It is racist to vote for someone because of their race. If I voted for McCain because he was the only white guy in the race that would be racist. The same applies to Obama. Wanting "the first black president" is a racist desire that you should be ashamed of, VERY ashamed. I didn't say everyone voted for him because of his races, I was clearly talking about those who did. There are many.

Your ASSumption that a lot of people voted for him because he's black is a piss poor one at best. Fact is, there's a black candidate running for the Republican nod. I'd never vote for him, because of the platform and policies of the party he's affiliated with.
How open minded of you.

(Party affiliation be damned, nor would any Republican vote for him... apparently... shhhhh... don't tell him. He doesn't know.)
Where did you find that? Is this more of your rotten-soul-full-of-putrid-hate facts?

People who voted Obama don't have to justify jack shit, thankee very much. He was clearly the best choice. And given the field running against him, and the twisted ideology of their ultra conservative Tea Party backers, he still is.
Heaven help us all if any of those f**ks should gain the Presidency.
Obama wasn't better than Clinton. She would have been a much superior president to Obama.
"ultra conservative" your emo-rhetoric is hilarious. ULTRA CONSERVATIVE IDEAS:
Balancing the budget. HOW RADICAL! !!!! THEY ARE CRAZY.
1) They will get elected. This president has quit. He can't raise the money he needs to buy the election, he can't move to the center because his base was never independents, and he can’t move left because the country is already sick of these failed, yet retried, leftist policies. He's done.
2) The economy will recover, just as you anything would improve if you were to lighten its burden and clear its way. Of note, Obamacare is going to the Supremes. They will strike it down. This will happen in a few months. The Republicans will be able to capitalize on this, and the job growth it will spur, as proof that Obama's policies re what is killing this country (and they are right).
Keep being "tolerant," it exposes the left as what it is: hate filled, lockstep indoctrinated, economic illiterates.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
First: Obama's dad was a Kenyan. There is nothing shameful or wrong with being proud of his African heritage. Only liberals find it insulting because they would be offended if someone said that of them; they see it as being less than a white person. I'm proud of my people that used to walk around in loin cloths, and hunt with sticks.

Seriously? That's your answer to the bone-in-the-nose characterizations? Obama should be *happy* about them? Do you really think they are intended as a compliment, as an attempt to instill him with pride in his heritage?

So is there also some proud "pimp" heritage he should rejoice in as well? Have I been wrong all along, then, to construe these representations as racist attacks?

Romney, Paul, or Bachman said "Obama is a monkey that walks around with a bone in his nose"? Didn't think so. Not only that, the Tea Party NEVER said that. Are there racist members? Yes. There are racists everywhere. Is the organization racist because a few of its members are racist? Absolutely not. Do you like to call Tea Party members racist because it makes you feel superior? Uh huh.

Of course Romney, Paul, and Bachman haven't said such things--no politician would. Just as no party can get away with taking an openly racist position. Long years of civil rights struggle--no thanks to conservatives, by the way--have seen to that. You know full well that racism nowadays has to be more circumspect. And yes, I acknowledge that it's therefore harder to make the charge stick.

The fact remains that not only are there racist members of the Tea Party, but they are countenanced to an alarming degree. No, the movement doesn't have a stated racist position--but it's where the racists feel at home. Maybe you're comfortable with that. I'm not.

I never once said that previous elections were fair. Not once. You should go find where I said that. Not only that, it isn't a tenant of the Tea Party that all elections before this one were fair. You aren't proving your point here, son.

Fine, dad. As you suggest, let's talk about what you *didn't* say.

You didn't say that all presidential elections have been tainted by a systemic racism against minorities (not until I prompted you). You *still* haven't said that Obama lost more votes due to racism than gained them, that (as it took no genius to foresee) a substantial number of the white majority voted against him solely because he was black (you do know he lost the white vote, right?).

All you chose to focus on was that some black people voted for him because he was black. And you don't see that as one sided?

Ultimately you conclude that its racist to point out when Democrats are being racist. Amazing. That is flat out amazing.

It is racist to cry "reverse racism" while ignoring the far more pervasive and long-standing good ol' fashioned kind of racism that preceded it and still exists--especially when, as you yourself have acknowledged, you *know better*.

I don't even need to be here. You are proving my point. Racism is just fine when it suits your purpose. When it hurts a white/hispanic/asian/whatever man that is perfectly fine. Why? The ends have justified the means.

You're the one who cried "racism" and used it to suit your purpose. I simply called you out on it.

You don't have to wait for shit. I've been an equalitarian since I was old enough to know what one was. There is no gain in your racist system. One race benefits over the other, then there is retribution and the other race benefits over others. Its a painful cycle that your party exploits to benefit them at the ballot box. Everyone who isn't an equalitarian should be absolutely ashamed of themself. You aren't one.

I will take you at your word that you're striving to be an egalitarian. To that end, I invite you to do some soul searching. Seriously consider both what you said and *what you didn't say,* the one-sided, ahistorical argument you tried to present. If after some reflection you can still say that you don't have some work to do on your own feelings about race, I have nothing more to offer you.
 
Last edited:

EagleCowboy

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Posts
1,278
Media
4
Likes
476
Points
228
Location
TEXAS
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Just because I expect you might be the kind of guy to call me on a technicality: there technically are ebola vaccines, but they are impractical, in development, and not in distribution.

Other concerns:
Your (Well sourced; I applaud you. Misrepresented; you need to read deeper.) bullet point detailing 'adverse affects' reported by doctors is vague. An enormous percentage of that 54k+ would be people who got stiffness at the injection site, slight fevers, small headaches... etc... That was all taken into consideration and adjusted for.

As for your lists of outbreaks and deaths. In ALL cases, vaccines do not make you 'immune' to a disease. Apparently, none of them do. They improve your immunity: meaning your body reacts faster to fight off the (specific variation of the) disease. Incorrect. It doesn't work like that. Your body sees each version of the same pathogen as a whole different beast. However, different vaccines are needed for different strains within the same virus (H1N1 is still influenza, but not preventable by regular flu vaccines). But it is by Elderberry tincture. So is the H5N1 that they're going to be scaring you with this fall. So, when one form of a virus is reduced or eliminated, some distinct alternate strains may be left to flourish. This is true. Like the Super Gonorrhea that is now resistant to 8 main antibiotics.

Also, your disregard of the wikipedia post ignores the direct link citation within the post to a WHO article on the subject. The WHO is a credible source, unless you believe vaccines are part of a massive intergovernmental conspiracy... Which is even more crackpot than the 9/11 conspiracy nuts because you'd have to accept not only silence (which is a stretch) but also complicity and cooperation between all 193 member states of the UN. Kim Jong-Il and Ayatollah Khamenei are cooperating with the great satan on this one?

Then again, slowly poisoning the US population does seem to fit in with their agenda. Now you're getting where I'm coming from. But it's not just the US. Try this: just go check out which foods you consume every day at random that contain sodium benzoate and write them down. Figure up just how much of that stuff you consume. Then look up exactly what it does to you. And that's just for starters!

Clearly no one read the link I provided on what's ACTUALLY IN the vaccines.

I guess I should have been more clear in my statement when I said that vaccines are far more dangerous than anything you can catch in the wild. Even though that IS true, what I should have said, to be clear, is that what's IN the vaccines along with the main pathogen(s) is far worse than anything we can catch in the wild.

Wikipedia cannot be used as a credible and finite source as it can be changed by pretty much anybody at any time. Encyclopedias are researched to death and back by credible people determined to present all the truth they can find and finalized.

Unfortunately, the WHO is no longer a credible source anymore, nor is the FDA and the IOM. Follow the money and you will find that they are all paid whores by Big Pharma. And you're not going to like what you find in that search.

Now here's a good one for you to check out! If vaccinations are so great and safe, then WHY is the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation doing FORCED vaccinations in Africa AT GUNPOINT?? Why are vaccinations being done in Maryland AT GUNPOINT??

I DON'T expect anyone to take what I say here as gospel. Either believe it or don't. I don't care. I am just telling you what I have found and and have been able to real-world confirm it myself.

This is what I DO expect:
Go research it for yourself. That is, if you care anything about your health at all.
While you're researching it, follow the money trail. Who's paying whom and why. Take notes.
You're not gonna like what you find.


 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
[chuckle] wheeeeeeeeee! How you make me laugh! You're good at calling others racist, socialists, illiterate, while at the same time revealing oneself, eh? To wit:

That claim is made up. Nobody would classify Obama as a centrist. Not only that, his stated policy positions put him firmly on the left of the economic continuum.

It's not made up. A number of political and economic observers with credentials define him as such. Your claim that it's made up is made up.

Don't act as though the left has some monopoly on helping people. The majority of leftist programs are centered on getting reelected or giving tax payer money to their friends. On top of that, for leftists good intentions trump bad results. Never mind that you can track an unbelievable amount of bad results directly to socialist ideology, they think their intentions are what count. They aren't.

Well I think intentions count. Like "fer" instance the GOP's intentions to allow changes to tax laws that will result in an increase in taxes for middle-class Americans while they vehemently protect and defend tax breaks for the rich. How's that for "good intentions". Tell ya what, pal, if I had my choice between good intentions that don't quite work out, and bad intentions that I know are designed to fuck me (?)... I'd pick good intentions every fuckin' time.

Unemployment under G.W. for the 8 years he was in offce was ~5.2%. Compared to the golden days of socialism that we are currently experiencing, they were very prosperous. I'd like to point out that Obama furthered the bailouts, and bailed out all kinds of other people, too. Don't forget, the Democrats controlled both houses when that happened, and had to pass that legislation.

How quickly you forget that today's economic woes were set into motion under the "glory daze" of G.W.

Feel free to prove that the Tea Party is
1) Hate based, not based on sound policy like less government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.
2) Based on racism. Have at it.

I believe I originally stated that there were racist elements within the Tea Party, elements that are of influence in that group's ideology. Let's say this, if they aren't they've done a shitty job of disavowing those factions within their group, haven't they.

Hey, Morgan Freeman is an actor that one would hardly define as anything near "radical" would you not agree? I mean he's pretty mainstream. So you can bet your bottom dollar that if a person like Freeman thinks the Tea Party is "a racist thing", then a WHOLE lot of people think so. You are, "my friend", judged by the company you keep.

It is racist to vote for someone because of their race. If I voted for McCain because he was the only white guy in the race that would be racist. The same applies to Obama.

True. Wanting or not wanting a particular candidate because of their race would be racist.

Wanting "the first black president" is a racist desire that you should be ashamed of, VERY ashamed.


A quite unfortunate statement on your part, imo.

That you'd be completely bereft of the historical significance of such an event, or of any regard to its significance, given the history of denial of equality for African Americans, from the very inception of this nation's constitution, and given centuries of struggle; demonstrates an absence of comprehension that I find disturbing.

You'll have to forgive us (those who you think voted on race alone) if we're not so ashamed at finally righting a great many injustices.

BTW. How many African Americans (would you calculate) never stood a chance in hell of being President, because they were black? Was that not also racist??

There may indeed have been many people who voted for Obama because he is black. VERY many more voted for him in spite of it. Rest assured, even if he weren't, he far out-shined McCain and (what's her name) by such a margin that choosing him was clearly a no-brainer. If you don't know that, I can't help you.

Obama wasn't better than Clinton. She would have been a much superior president to Obama.


"Superior" in that she wouldn't have had to put up with half as much BULLSHIT as Obama, clearly.

"ultra conservative" your emo-rhetoric is hilarious. ULTRA CONSERVATIVE IDEAS:
Balancing the budget. HOW RADICAL! !!!! THEY ARE CRAZY


Yeah. Balancing it on the backs of middle-class Americans while protecting the tax loopholes, write offs, etc. of the filthy rich.

1) They will get elected. This president has quit. He can't raise the money he needs to buy the election, he can't move to the center because his base was never independents, and he can’t move left because the country is already sick of these failed, yet retried, leftist policies. He's done.
2) The economy will recover, just as you anything would improve if you were to lighten its burden and clear its way. Of note, Obamacare is going to the Supremes. They will strike it down. This will happen in a few months. The Republicans will be able to capitalize on this, and the job growth it will spur, as proof that Obama's policies re what is killing this country (and they are right).
Keep being "tolerant," it exposes the left as what it is: hate filled, lockstep indoctrinated, economic illiterates.

Yes, we expect the conservative loaded SCOTUS in partnership with the GOP to kill health care reform, remove, undermine, or weaken laws protecting consumers from unfair credit practices and skyrocketing interest rates, and to further limit (as they did under G.W.) the rights of consumers to litigation against corporate irresponsibility.

And the SCOTUS (some of the justices are unabashedly affiliated with those same Tea Party groups) certainly made sure that corporate America could funnel unlimited funds into the pockets of their candidates of choice, to buy that protection, didn't they?

Bear in mind however, it was a so-called "left minded hate filled economic illiterate" named Bill Clinton who HAD a fuckin' balanced budget, before you "geniuses" got your fuckin' hands on it..................

...........eh? :cool:
 
Last edited:

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Seriously? That's your answer to the bone-in-the-nose with that. ......... I'm not.
You still haven't proved this. In order to be racist you must either have 1) proclaimed yourself as such, or 2) taken actions that prove, overwhelmingly, that you are a racist. To say things like "racists feel at home in the Tea Party" is meaningless. You have nothing, absolutely nothing, to back that up with. We do know that racists are openly present in the Black Panthers, the White Power movement, La Raza, ect. They admit that they are being racist, openly. The Tea Party is simply a huge threat to the left, thus the left brought out their usual bag of bullshit insults.


You didn't say that all presidential elections have been tainted by a systemic racism against minorities (not until I prompted you). You *still* haven't said that Obama lost more votes due to racism than gained them, that (as it took no genius to foresee) a substantial number of the white majority voted against him solely because he was black (you do know he lost the white vote, right?).

All you chose to focus on was that some black people voted for him because he was black. And you don't see that as one sided?
I don't need to have a twenty page disclaimer on what I believe in order to post on a forum. You don't get the 'not a racist' award for being the first on this thread to point out that previous elections were lacking in minority participation. That means nothing. Being that those evil white people didn't show up in large numbers for McCain compared to previous elections I would call you to prove that claim.

Some? Look at the percentage of black voters that voted for Obama. Lets turn the tables, a surefire way to prove leftists are racist, if 94%+ of white people voted for a white guy in a race against a black guy you'd automatically say "racism." This goes back to my original point. You don't care if what you're doing is racists, you believe in the ends. So you can be as racist as you want. That isn't ok.


It is racist to cry "reverse racism" while ignoring the far more pervasive and long-standing good ol' fashioned kind of racism that preceded it and still exists--especially when, as you yourself have acknowledged, you *know better*.
nobody claimed reverse racism. What you and your party did was just regular racism. I'm ignoring nothing. The sooner we move to a color blind society the better. Of course we can never get there when people like you continually justify yourself in your racist positions.

You're the one who cried "racism" and used it to suit your purpose. I simply called you out on it.
We'll call this: you conceeding the point.

I will take you at your word that you're striving to be an egalitarian. To that end, I invite you to do some soul searching. Seriously consider both what you said and *what you didn't say,* the one-sided, ahistorical argument you tried to present. If after some reflection you can still say that you don't have some work to do on your own feelings about race, I have nothing more to offer you.
You don't have to take my word on shit, and frankly I don't care what you think. The left has bottomed out in terms of believability and respect.

I don't need to consider what I didn't say. No president (not even a Democrat) should get one vote because someone identifies with their race. Thats absurd. I didn't present some one sided argument, you just wanted to have that discussion so you did.

I have work to do? WTF?!?!


You are openly expressing that its perfectly fine to be racist so long as you agree with the purpose. This is a disgusting and shameful position. You should work day and night till you understand that you have racist thoughts, you are ashamed of yourself, and you are willing to change. Thats when you will have something to offer me.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
It's not made up. A number of political and economic observers with credentials define him as such. Your claim that it's made up is made up.
Name a few. For every one you provide that says Obama is a centrist, I'll provide two that say he's a leftist.



Well I think intentions count. Like "fer" insand bad intentions that I know are designed to fuck me (?)... I'd pick good intentions every fuckin' time.
Of course you would, we all would. Thats a wonderful strawman. This is more about the left claiming moral superiority, though they rarely have it, to control policy. Often the choice is exactly as I put it: "the just left" that doesn't work vs "unjust right" that will work. The left just wants more cronyism, hate, division, and strife. They thrive on it.



How quickly you forget that today's economic woes were set into motion under the "glory daze" of G.W.[/quote]What part of government is responsible for spending bills? I'll give you time to look up who was in control of congress from 2007-2010. Irocially, you can watch the founder of the Tea Party explain that our economic situation started under Bush. The Tea Party would have never supported Bush. He was out of line, Obama is out of orbit.



I believe I originally stated that there were racist elements within the Tea Party, elements that are of influence in that group's ideology. Let's say this, if they aren't they've done a shitty job of disavowing those factions within their group, haven't they.
There are racist elements in almost every group. Of course your party is no pillar of egalitarianism. Further, you can trace back every single position of the Tea Party to a solid economic argument about limited government. Not a single policy position was informed by racism. I'd dare you to find one.

Amy Kremer flat out said "this is not a racist movement, we don't want you (racists) here, go away if that is what you are about. This is about the fiscal issues." She said that one The View, one of the most watched shows on TV.

Hey, Morgan Freeman is an actged by the company you keep.
No. He's off his rocker. Not only that, how much of his opinion is informed by the hate-filled left media? Once the Tea Party was a real threat the left started using their one, now dull, tool: call the right racists. It didn't work as there is nothing racist about the Tea Party; well nothing more racist about them than any other given group.


A quite unfortunate statement on your part, imo.
choosing him was clearly a no-brainer. If you don't know that, I can't help you.
Let me clarify my statement. It is wrong to vote for a candidate because you want to see a person of that candidates race get elected. I think we all looked forward to the day when a black person would be president, and for the other races too.

I do take issue with your portrayal of your heroic efforts to right the wrongs of history. You changed nothing. Slavery still happened, Jim Crow laws still existed. Electing Barack changed nothing.

Why do you have to vote for him "in spite" of his race? Why do you have to overcome that in order to vote for him? Is being black a handicap? This is exactly what I mean. Inside of you is racism, so when you look out on the world you can't help but see it everywhere.

I have an absence of nothing. Racism has proved one thing: you cant fix it with more racism. Throughout history one race is on top, then the other. Never is a race satisfied. Why? Because of people like you. You think its perfectly fine to be racist so long as your end is justified; this is exactly how segregationists thought, how slavers thought.

Yeah. Balancing it on the backs of middle-class Americans while protecting the tax loopholes, write offs, etc. of the filthy rich.
Well, the rich pay the mass majority of the taxes, they should get the mass majority of the cuts. How do you give the lower income brackets cuts when they are already paying $0 in taxes? How much cheaper can you go than free-ride?




Yes, we expect the conservative loaded......... protection, didn't they?
I love this entire statement. First, the court is "loaded" as though there was some underhandedness in how the justices were appointed. Next, it must have been some greedy play for power or money. I mean, nobody could ever believe that Obamacare, or liberalism in general, is a failed ideology that creates poverty, moral hazard, and destroys wealth anywhere it can find it. I'll promise you right now, those conservative justices believe liberalism is a harmful ideolgy that will destroy all we have worked for in this country if it's allowed to continue. It has nothing to do with money or elections, its an ideological debate where they don't agree with you.

Bear in mind however, it was a so-called "left minded hate filled economic illiterate" named Bill Clinton who HAD a fuckin' balanced budget, before you "geniuses" got your fuckin' hands on it
Amazing how little you remember/know. Who had both houses of the congress? Was that A) The Democrats, or B) Republicans. Ah yes, it was the Republicans. So, Billy boy didn't do it alone. Further, you claim "we" ruined it. G.W. was a tax and spend socialist. The Tea Party would have never supported G.W.