Bachman: "Cervical Cancer Shot Caused Mental Retardation"

[b.c.]

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 here's one for starters, and I've linked other such articles in past posts. But, dude, do your own frickin' research, instead of regurgitating leftist babble.

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.

I disagree.

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.

If you say so. Generally, if it looks like a duck and quacks like one...

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.

If it looks like a duck....

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.

I disagree. If you in your lack of vision think nothing has changed, that's on you.

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?

I personally didn't see his race as a handicap. But I think it safe to say that at least a few voted for Obama who at one time would have never considered doing so. You know whereof I speak, and for you to sit here and blindly suggest that his race was never a factor or obstacle to overcome is pure bullshit.

Don't fuckin' try to make us out to be racists for recognizing that it exists. That's an old trick, Trin...er..Upperdown.

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.

See what I mean? More absurd smoke and mirror bullshit. Now we're the racists. lol

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?

I did not speak of that income bracket that pays no taxes, though predictable you'd bring them up. I spoke of how the GOP favors increasing taxes and putting a greater tax burden on the backs of already struggling middle class blue and white collar workers while protecting tax cuts for the rich.

It has nothing to do with money or elections, its an ideological debate where they don't agree with you.

Oh it has everything to do with money, control, and power.

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.

What I remember is that the Republicans in Congress were spending a great deal of the country's time trying to impeach that president who apparently (according to you) would have never gotten the job done without them.

Right. That's the glory of revisionist history. You can deny or fabricate any bullshit you heart desires.

BTW. I disagree.

 

[Klingsor]

[Extended rant about how I'm racist, shameful, disgusting, etc.]

I tried. I really did. Maybe someone else here can get through to you.

In the mean time, we will continue to look at things very differently. I only hope others in positions of power can find more common ground than you and I have.

Peace be with you.

 

[Upperdown]

Well here's one for starters, and I've linked other such articles in past posts. But, dude, do your own frickin' research, instead of regurgitating leftist babble.

Thats what I thought.

I disagree.

Again, no surprises.

If you say so. Generally, if it looks like a duck and quacks like one...

You've yet to prove that it either looks like a duck or that it quacks like one.

I disagree. If you in your lack of vision think nothing has changed, that's on you.

Of course you do, you think you are the hero. "The Democrats, alone and against all odds, faced down the purely evil conservative movement to end strife, hate, and ignorance! Tune in next week when the Democrats stop a speeding train..."

I personally didn't see his race as a handicap. But I think it safe to say that at least a few voted for Obama who at one time would have never considered doing so. You know whereof I speak, and for you to sit here and blindly suggest that his race was never a factor or obstacle to overcome is pure bullshit.

Apparently, Hillary Clintons race was also something to overcome. Interesing. Too bad she wasn't black she'd be president.

Don't fuckin' try to make us out to be racists for recognizing that it exists. That's an old trick, Trin...er..Upperdown.

Is this when you try to make me out as somebody who got banned so the moderators will ban me, too? How...well....Democrat of you. If you cant win, shut them up.

See what I mean? More absurd smoke and mirror bullshit. Now we're the racists. lol

Yeah, totally absurd to say that you think its ok to vote for someone based on their race. Absurd.

I did not speak of that income bracket that pays no taxes, though predictable you'd bring them up. I spoke of how the GOP favors increasing taxes and putting a greater tax burden on the backs of already struggling middle class blue and white collar workers while protecting tax cuts for the rich.

Last time I checked they wanted tax cuts across the board. I know Moveon said they want to screw the "working man" but it just isn't true. Ironically, you have no trouble whatsoever that your guy, Obama, wants to raise taxes, er should I say "put a greater tax burden on the backs of already struggling minddle class blue and white collar workers." Thats fine. Its helping out the rich people we have an issue with?

Oh it has everything to do with money, control, and power.

You can't possibly be more wrong. This belief is why you are so full of hate, and it is backwards and ignorant. Its as bad as your racism.

What I remember is that the Republicans in Congress were spending a great deal of the country's time trying to impeach that president who apparently (according to you) would have never gotten the job done without them.

Right. That's the glory of revisionist history. You can deny or fabricate any bullshit you heart desires.

BTW. I disagree.

Just double checking:

1) the Republicans get no credit for balancing the budget? (I'm amazed at your logic, too.)

2) the Democrats get no credit for the spend-a-thon that led us to this juncture?

 

[Upperdown]

I tried. I really did. Maybe someone else here can get through to you.

In the mean time, we will continue to look at things very differently. I only hope others in positions of power can find more common ground than you and I have.

Peace be with you.

Peace is with me. It cannot be with those who stand by racial division, no matter what their vision. If you practice racism then you are a racist. Racists must go.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Opinion: HPV shot attack could harm 'innocent' girls - Health - Health care - Breaking Bioethics - msnbc.com

WTF?????

And I recall.... didn't she also say that Hurricane Irene was God's wrath for America's politics??? (or something like that)

Jeez...just when you thought they couldn't get anyone loonier than Palin.

(btw. I just noticed I misspelled her name...whatever....)

I have to confess... I read the thread title and assumed it referred to Bachmann's mental retardation.

 

[Klingsor]

Peace is with me. It cannot be with those who stand by racial division, no matter what their vision. If you practice racism then you are a racist. Racists must go.

I agree with you. That may surprise you, but I do.

You say that favoring or discriminating against anyone because of their skin color is racist, whether practiced by a black person or a white person. All things being equal, I agree with you.

My only point is, all things aren't equal. A black person who voted for Obama solely because of his skin color did so because there had never been a black president.

A white person who voted against Obama solely because of his skin color did so because, by God, there was never going to be a black president.

Neither may be a good reason for deciding how to vote, but I do find one impulse more understandable than the other. Particularly since that first attitude only came about in response to, as a direct result of, centuries of the second.

I hope we see the day very soon when no one, black or white, feels the need to redress racial injustice by automatically siding with the candidate of their own color. Hopefully, electing our first black president, finally breaking that barrier, has brought us closer to that point.

I'm not sure we're quite so far apart as you suggest. Of course, you're free to tell me otherwise. But if we are going to continue a discussion, I hope we can both be a little more friendly about it.

What can it hurt?

 

[b.c.]

Thats what I thought. Again, no surprises.

Yes, no surprise that I'll not waste my time researching evidence to provide to someone who'd refuse to see the truth of it regardless. VBoy wasted a lot of his time and passion going 'round with your ilk. I've got better things to do.

You've yet to prove that it either looks like a duck or that it quacks like one.

Dude, I don't have to prove it. It's proven by the actions of their constituency.

Of course you do, you think you are the hero. "The Democrats, alone and against all odds, faced down the purely evil conservative movement to end strife, hate, and ignorance! Tune in next week when the Democrats stop a speeding train..."

You got it.

Apparently, Hillary Clintons race was also something to overcome. Interesing. Too bad she wasn't black she'd be president.

Whaaat? A racist statement from you?? No!

Is this when you try to make me out as somebody who got banned so the moderators will ban me, too? How...well....Democrat of you. If you cant win, shut them up.

Only in that we've been down this same road and the same arguments with "her", and it was equally a waste of one's time.

Yeah, totally absurd to say that you think its ok to vote for someone based on their race. Absurd.

I didn't say it was ok. I said there were emotions in play based on historical and social realities of our society that may have understandably influenced some to want to see a black man elected as president. I also suggested that you are shortsighted (to use a kinder word), if you are unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge this. Your lack understanding (or refusal to acknowledge it) shows a lot about your character.

Last time I checked they wanted tax cuts across the board. I know Moveon said they want to screw the "working man" but it just isn't true. Ironically, you have no trouble whatsoever that your guy, Obama, wants to raise taxes, er should I say "put a greater tax burden on the backs of already struggling minddle class blue and white collar workers." Thats fine. Its helping out the rich people we have an issue with?

Maybe you should "check" again. Your facts are all backwards. the GOP was in favor of allowing tax laws that currently existed to expire, thereby resulting in an increase in taxes for most middle-class Americans. They had no problem with it. This was right after they fought tooth and nail (in the national debt debate) to preserve tax breaks for the rich. Here's one source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...working-poor/2011/08/23/gIQAEDJuZJ_story.html

and another (dude, do your own fuckin' research):

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

Contrary to your lie, Obama had always stated that he'd veto any bill that raises taxes on middle-class Americans while protecting the tax breaks the rich currently enjoy, so I don't WHAT the fuck you're talking about. Neither do you, I guess.

Just double checking:

1) the Republicans get no credit for balancing the budget? (I'm amazed at your logic, too.)

2) the Democrats get no credit for the spend-a-thon that led us to this juncture?

I'm glad you mention this, because it seems you have quite a knack of switching credit to whatever side you want. Examples:

1. The banker and saving and loan bailouts weren't all on G.W. The Democratic controlled congress could have stopped him, you say.
2. Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget alone, the Republican controlled congress did it too, you say.
3. G.W. didn't put the country in financial crisis alone, his Democratic controlled congress helped him, you say.

Let me ask you this one, chief. The Republicans have controlled the House since the last election... wrote up some "promise to America" bullshit. What the fuck have they've done YET to change our current state of affairs? Not their fault??

and,

if they promised NO TAX INCREASES, why are they in favor of changes to tax law that'd result in an increase for middle-class taxpayers?? Guess we should've read the fine print, eh?

You said that the GOP is not about money, control or power. You said it was merely a difference in ideology. Right. Lets examine that GOP ideology:

1. Protect the tax write offs and loopholes of the wealthy
2. Allow for tax increases to the middle class
3. End entitlement programs - cut or scrap social security and medicare.
4. Prevent legislation and laws that ensure the civil rights of LGBT community
5. Enforce teaching of creationism in public schools
6. Limit legal recourse for citizens against corporations, banks, etc.
7. Remove environmental and other regulations governing industry and corporations "Hell, there ain't no such thing as global warming."
8. Dismantle health care initiatives that seek to provide affordable health care to all
9. Remove consumer protection laws that prevent creditors and businesses from unscrupulous practices, undisclosed and sporadic hikes to interest rates, and other such anti-consumer bullshit
10. End extended benefits to the unemployed "Those people can find a job if the want one."
11. Dismantle and legislate against the collective bargaining rights of workers, and FUCK a decent minimum wage
12. Pass laws (like in Alabama) requiring school teachers to grill kids about whether they have their green cards - WTF?? (Here's a HEADS UP for you geniuses: HISPANICS are now the LARGEST MINORITY in the United States. I wouldn't piss them off.)
13. Protect the rights of the unborn (and maybe in some situations we should) but FUCK THEM after they're born - "Let 'em get a fuckin' job."


(Did I forget anything?)

 

[Upperdown]

Yes, no surprise that I'll not waste my time researching evidence to provide to someone who'd refuse to see the truth of it regardless. VBoy wasted a lot of his time and passion going 'round with your ilk. I've got better things to do.

You made the claim, you prove it. He's a far-left socialist. We'll consider this point conceeded.

Dude, I don't have to prove it. It's proven by the actions of their constituency.

Another worthless platituted that doesn't nothing to substantiate your point. Either prove it or conceed it. You can't prove it, so......

You got it.

I know I do, I just told you I did. Can you explain why Robert Byrd and George Wallace were Democrats till they day they died? Or why Democrats repeatedly voted down the civil rights bill? Hero!

Whaaat? A racist statement from you?? No!

Thats racist? I find it hilarious that you are openly advocating for racism then claiming moral superiority bases exclusively on your political party. Theres a word for this.

Only in that we've been down this same road and the same arguments with "her", and it was equally a waste of one's time.

And I'm sure you used all the standard leftist/liberal tactics to avoid the intellection debate; like this one.

I didn't say it was ok. I said there were emotions in play based on historical and social realities of our society that may have understandably influenced some to want to see a black man elected as president. I also suggested that you are shortsighted (to use a kinder word), if you are unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge this. Your lack understanding (or refusal to acknowledge it) shows a lot about your character.

Yes, you're justifying racism. I'll promise you that every single people in history thought their racism was justified. Only history can show you how unbelievably wrong you are. I never once said I didn't understand the racial history of the United States. There was huge difference, which prove only one thing: we must adopt strictly color blind laws. Trying to 'even it out' only spreads racial bigotry (see any of your previous statements). MY character? You are openly defending racism. This is unreal, un-freaking-real. ME: We must stop racism for any reason, all the time, YOU: racism is fine so long as I can justify its use.

Maybe you should "check" again. Your facts are all backwards. the GOP was in favor of allowing tax laws that currently existed to expire, thereby resulting in an increase in taxes for most middle-class Americans. They had no problem with it. This was right after they fought tooth and nail (in the national debt debate) to preserve tax breaks for the rich. Here's one source:

Your sources are crap, see below.

The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor - The Washington Post

This is an editorial, thus an opinion. You might as well have written it yourself. Whats even better, he cites the Republicans saying things like "broad based" as meaning the exact opposite. Only liberals can believe this crap.

and another (dude, do your own fuckin' research):

Liberals always demand others to do their work, and they should get the benefit. I see why, these are piss poor arguments.

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block - Yahoo! News

So, the presidents own budget office says there is a better way, but the Republicans get the axe for wanting to do it that way? Not only that, this was temporary from the start. Amazing. Republicans can advocate for tax cuts for everyone all day, but you find one op-ed and a yahoo article saying waht could happen and that, somehow, disproves everything they have said and done. Only liberals.

Contrary to your lie, Obama had always stated that he'd veto any bill that raises taxes on middle-class Americans while protecting the tax breaks the rich currently enjoy, so I don't WHAT the fuck you're talking about. Neither do you, I guess.

I love all the ways out. The rich enjoy no tax breaks that the poor don't also enjoy. If they can't take advantage of them that is their own problem. You may notice, from your own article, that a large chunk of the population pay no income taxes. So, how do you go lower than free? Should they get a 50% cut? 90%, hell, lets do 1000% cut for those poor people. That'll help them. They pay $0 and all you can think about is how badly you want to take the money from rich people so they have to be as poor as you: Greed, Hate, Ignorance.

1. The banker and saving and loan bailouts weren't all on G.W. The Democratic controlled congress could have stopped him, you say.
2. Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget alone, the Republican controlled congress did it too, you say.
3. G.W. didn't put the country in financial crisis alone, his Democratic controlled congress helped him, you say.

History said these things, not me.

Let me ask you this one, chief. The Republicans have controlled the House since the last election... wrote up some "promise to America" bullshit. What the fuck have they've done YET to change our current state of affairs? Not their fault??

Well, for one, Cut, Cap, Balance was a solid attempt. You may notice that the Republicans got ran out of power. The public put up with their bullshit deficits and fiscal nonsense for a few years, then..out. They got what they deserved. Where is the Democrats contract? Oh yeah, they are only about making everyone poor.

if they promised NO TAX INCREASES, why are they in favor of changes to tax law that'd result in an increase for middle-class taxpayers?? Guess we should've read the fine print, eh?

1) they didn't all promise no tax increase. You can act like every Republican that has ever existed said that, but we both know you are being an idiot.

2) Lets take what you say as true: they vote for the op-ed tax raises you mentioned. Republicans advocate tax cuts for everyone 9 out of 10 times and now they're some how only advocating for tax increase. How about your party? They couldn't care less if the economy fall flat on its ass (this should be past-tense)., they just want to screw rich people. Funny, they're screwing us all.

 

[Upperdown]

You said that the GOP is not about money, control or power. You said it was merely a difference in ideology. Right. Lets examine that GOP ideology:

1. Protect the tax write offs and loopholes of the wealthy

Right is right, even if you are extremely jealous of rich people they deserve to keep their wealth.

2. Allow for tax increases to the middle class

Your party openly advocates this while the Republicans have done everything they can to get taxes on everyone in this country down.

3. End entitlement programs - cut or scrap social security and medicare.

blatant exageration. Of course, I think that would be one of the best ideas around. Your idea: lets keep it around till everyone is dirt poor, that'll show those rich fucks. Ironically, it was your guy that cut Medicare by 25%, not those tricky Republicans. Maybe you should clean your own house first.

4. Prevent legislation and laws that ensure the civil rights of LGBT community

Again, you are not relating the Republican platform but the actions of members of the party. Is this wrong? yep. They should leave social issues alone.

5. Enforce teaching of creationism in public schools

How pathetic.

6. Limit legal recourse for citizens against corporations, banks, etc.

Democrats have NEVER done this? Have they? Not only that, you just recited a nothing-platitude. Give me an example.

7. Remove environmental and other regulations governing industry and corporations "Hell, there ain't no such thing as global warming."

AGW is far from established. Just because you drank the koolaid when you were instructed to do so doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Heres some fun for me: Obama pulls back proposed smog standards in victory for business - The Washington Post

Not only that, you blatantly exagerated this. The Republicans often cite the environment, but your emotions are whats important, right? Liberals *scoff*.

8. Dismantle health care initiatives that seek to provide affordable health care to all

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

New Study Underlines Unfulfilled Promises of Health Care Bill - ABC News

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

OMG this is fun. You're like an opinionated little teenager.

9. Remove consumer protection laws that prevent creditors and businesses from unscrupulous practices, undisclosed and sporadic hikes to interest rates, and other such anti-consumer bullshit

GovTrack: Senate Vote On Passage: H.R. 627 [111th]: Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and...

Sure see a lot of "Yea" votes on the Credit CARD Act from Republicans. But you claim they "removed" such protections. Amazing.

10. End extended benefits to the unemployed "Those people can find a job if the want one."

ABSOLUTELY! Get those lazy assholes out into the work place. People will sit on unemployment until their benefits run out. They will go months, or years, without finding a job only to find a job a few weeks after their benefits run out. How coincidental. Further, forcing employers to pay unemployment decreases the number of employees they'll hire, and makes part time or 1099 employees far more preferable.

Do Jobless Benefits Discourage People From Finding Jobs? - NYTimes.com

11. Dismantle and legislate against the collective bargaining rights of workers, and FUCK a decent minimum wage

Kool-aid. 1) The Republicans are fighting against public sector workers who are screwing the shit out of the taxpayer. You may notice your little recall didn't go as planned, people think they're getting screwed, too. Publc sector workers should not be electing the person they negotiate with, thats how you get six figure incomes for firemen.

Decent wage? WTF are you talking about? If the minimum wage worked why wouldn't we just raise it to $100/hr and make everyone a millionaire? Because it doesn't work. It creates barriers for entry into the work place and forces employers to make fewer employees go further.

12. Pass laws (like in Alabama) requiring school teachers to grill kids about whether they have their green cards - WTF?? (Here's a HEADS UP for you geniuses: HISPANICS are now the LARGEST MINORITY in the United States. I wouldn't piss them off.)

Agreed. Liberals have a taste for racism, and they'd gladly use racial politics to get elected. Ironically, overnight hundreds of students disappeared from public schools. Giving creedance to the notion that those kids were leeching the system.

13. Protect the rights of the unborn (and maybe in some situations we should) but FUCK THEM after they're born - "Let 'em get a fuckin' job."

Yeah, damn them for protecting the unborn! ! Assholes.

Its far better that once you're out you can't get a job, and if you do you're a "rich man" that needs to be burnt at the stake. Far better to have everyone live in well-intended slums, on food stamps. What an improvement!

I think you've convinced me that I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever vote for a Democrat again. Never. You people are messed up.

(Did I forget anything?)

Common sense.

 

[Kotchanski]

This is very off-topic, but reading the thread brought up a question for me, which pretty much pertains to EVERY thread in here!

What the fuck do you lot do when faced with someone on the same political side as you, but with a different opinion? I mean most of your arguments are nothing but insulting the other side, dressed up in a lot of bollocks you can't prove while claiming the other side has to prove their own bollocks. So when you're both on the same side, spouting the same bollocks, from the same sources, but coming to different conclusions, where does it go from there?

I'm genuinely concerned that it may cause side effects far worse than any potentially caused by vaccinations!

 

[Upperdown]

This is very off-topic, but reading the thread brought up a question for me, which pretty much pertains to EVERY thread in here!

What the fuck do you lot do when faced with someone on the same political side as you, but with a different opinion? I mean most of your arguments are nothing but insulting the other side, dressed up in a lot of bollocks you can't prove while claiming the other side has to prove their own bollocks. So when you're both on the same side, spouting the same bollocks, from the same sources, but coming to different conclusions, where does it go from there?

I'm genuinely concerned that it may cause side effects far worse than any potentially caused by vaccinations!

You want me to source every statement I make or else its "bollocks"? I noticed you provided not one single source to show that anything I said was wrong. Not one.

Most of my arguments are absolutely insulting to the liberals, they can't handle ideological debate, and they are dead wrong.


Long story short: dont come in here claiming everyone is wrong and they need to prove to you what they say. If its so obviously wrong, then you should easily be able to give me a good argument and a source. You did exactly what you claimed was "bollocks".

 

[Kotchanski]

You want me to source every statement I make or else its "bollocks"? I noticed you provided not one single source to show that anything I said was wrong. Not one.

Most of my arguments are absolutely insulting to the liberals, they can't handle ideological debate, and they are dead wrong.


Long story short: dont come in here claiming everyone is wrong and they need to prove to you what they say. If its so obviously wrong, then you should easily be able to give me a good argument and a source. You did exactly what you claimed was "bollocks".

Where does it say I was talking to you? Because I certainly wasn't, I was talking about this and every thread in the forum, as clearly stated in my post. I also took care to apply it to both sides, with no indication of which side I personal came down on. Further, if you can to reread what I wrote, I never once claimed what you or anyone else said was bollocks, I claimed that both sides make their arguments which consist of calling one another's posts bollocks based largely on the sources they cite and the side they come down on.

Why take it so personally when at every step, it was made clear that the comments were to be applied equally to both sides, and at no point were you mentioned or quoted?

 

[Upperdown]

Where does it say I was talking to you? Because I certainly wasn't, I was talking about this and every thread in the forum, as clearly stated in my post. I also took care to apply it to both sides, with no indication of which side I personal came down on. Further, if you can to reread what I wrote, I never once claimed what you or anyone else said was bollocks, I claimed that both sides make their arguments which consist of calling one another's posts bollocks based largely on the sources they cite and the side they come down on.

Why take it so personally when at every step, it was made clear that the comments were to be applied equally to both sides, and at no point were you mentioned or quoted?

Specificity would help you immensely. You post immediately after me, this deep into a thread, anyone would consider that to be a response. The question would stand: why not start you own thread?

In response to your question: 1984 dealt with this. There is no answer. All you can do is put out your point, enjoy what you're doing, and give the other side a chance. If you've done that there is nothing else that can be done.

 

[b.c.]

(whoops...double post)

 

[b.c.]

You made the claim, you prove it. He's a far-left socialist. We'll consider this point conceeded.

The word is "conceded"... and I disagree.

Another worthless platituted that doesn't nothing to substantiate your point. Either prove it or conceed it. You can't prove it, so......

Platitude... And you can't disprove it.

I know I do, I just told you I did. Can you explain why Robert Byrd and George Wallace were Democrats till they day they died? Or why Democrats repeatedly voted down the civil rights bill? Hero!

Wallace pretty much renounced his early pro-segregationist ideas. Yes, there are Democrats who are "throwbacks". So what's your excuse?

No political party is perfect. But at least the Democrats currently embrace as a political ideology what, imo, is the nobler cause.

Thats racist? I find it hilarious that you are openly advocating for racism then claiming moral superiority bases exclusively on your political party. Theres a word for this.

Yep.

Yes, you're justifying racism. I'll promise you that every single people in history thought their racism was justified. Only history can show you how unbelievably wrong you are. I never once said I didn't understand the racial history of the United States. There was huge difference, which prove only one thing: we must adopt strictly color blind laws. Trying to 'even it out' only spreads racial bigotry (see any of your previous statements). MY character? You are openly defending racism.

I disagree.

Your sources are crap, see below.

I disagree. That you refuse to accept sources doesn't make them crap. It only validates why I shouldn't bother.

I love all the ways out. The rich enjoy no tax breaks that the poor don't also enjoy. If they can't take advantage of them that is their own problem.

How noble of you.

You may notice, from your own article, that a large chunk of the population pay no income taxes. So, how do you go lower than free? Should they get a 50% cut? 90%, hell, lets do 1000% cut for those poor people. That'll help them.

YOU keep speaking of poor people. I'm speaking of increased tax burdens to the hardworking middle class family trying to make ends meet while the REPUBLICANS DEFEND TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY by offering some lame-ass bullshit line like, "the wealthy provide jobs."

Well, for one, Cut, Cap, Balance was a solid attempt.

Hmmm.... sounds like one of those "good intentions that fail" that you so love to rail against.

They [Republicans] didn't all promise no tax increase. You can act like every Republican that has ever existed said that, but we both know you are being an idiot.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

blatant exageration. Of course, I think that would be one of the best ideas around. Your idea: lets keep it around till everyone is dirt poor, that'll show those rich fucks. Ironically, it was your guy that cut Medicare by 25%, not those tricky Republicans. Maybe you should clean your own house first.

It's "exaggeration". The Republican plan for Social Security and Medicare is clear. Many of us paid into that system. Too bad you think dropping or cutting it "one of the best ideas around."

Again, you are not relating the Republican platform but the actions of members of the party. Is this wrong? yep. They should leave social issues alone.

Yes, they should. But fact is several state Republican platforms (Texas, for one) have language with dire implications for those who don't exactly match their definition of "a family".

How pathetic.

Agreed. Conservative efforts to dictate what gets taught in school and rewrite textbooks to reflect their values are indeed "pathetic".

Democrats have NEVER done this? Have they? Not only that, you just recited a nothing-platitude. Give me an example.

Republicans want to reshape consumer bureau - Feb. 24, 2011

AGW is far from established. Just because you drank the koolaid when you were instructed to do so doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Right. It's all just "commie-pinko-socialist-liberal" propaganda.

Heres some fun for me: Obama pulls back proposed smog standards in victory for business - The Washington Post

Not only that, you blatantly exagerated this.

It's "exaggerate"... and it's not. It's a fact. As for Obama, yes, unfortunately he once again caved to interests who will in turn only use it to his discredit.

GovTrack: Senate Vote On Passage: H.R. 627 [111th]: Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and...

Sure see a lot of "Yea" votes on the Credit CARD Act from Republicans. But you claim they "removed" such protections. Amazing.

No, they want to remove them. See above.

ABSOLUTELY! Get those lazy assholes out into the work place. People will sit on unemployment until their benefits run out.....Decent wage? WTF are you talking about? If the minimum wage worked why wouldn't we just raise it to $100/hr and make everyone a millionaire? Because it doesn't work. It creates barriers for entry into the work place and forces employers to make fewer employees go further.

Your sense of understanding and compassion for the disenfranchised and minimum wage worker is "exceptional"... then again, perhaps not.

Agreed. Liberals have a taste for racism, and they'd gladly use racial politics to get elected. Ironically, overnight hundreds of students disappeared from public schools. Giving creedance to the notion that those kids were leeching the system.

It's.... aww never mind.

But yeah... kids... leeching the system. The little bastards.

Yeah, damn them for protecting the unborn! ! Assholes.

Its far better that once you're out you can't get a job, and if you do you're a "rich man" that needs to be burnt at the stake. Far better to have everyone live in well-intended slums, on food stamps. What an improvement!

(Not worth a reply... as if any of this OTHER shit was.)

I think you've convinced me that I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever vote for a Democrat again. Never. You people are messed up.

Common sense.

We won't lose any sleep over it, pal. But I'm certain our definitions differ on what is or isn't "common sense". To that end, consider this my last reply to you on this subject. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And hey... did I forget to mention?

...I disagree.

 

[b.c.]

This is very off-topic, but reading the thread brought up a question for me, which pretty much pertains to EVERY thread in here!

What the fuck do you lot do when faced with someone on the same political side as you, but with a different opinion? I mean most of your arguments are nothing but insulting the other side, dressed up in a lot of bollocks you can't prove while claiming the other side has to prove their own bollocks. So when you're both on the same side, spouting the same bollocks, from the same sources, but coming to different conclusions, where does it go from there?

I'm genuinely concerned that it may cause side effects far worse than any potentially caused by vaccinations!

Like lockjaw, perhaps?

But I get your point, in that different arguments and perspectives can be derived from even the same source. Furthermore, even when offered, sources are often derided by the opposition as being biased or unreliable.

The best one can do (if one is so inclined) is to offer a source upon which an argument (however applied) is based. I guess it's ultimately up to those of an opposing viewpoint to accept or reject it (though I don't usually expect the former).

 

[joyboytoy79]

Someone in this thread sure got high marks in "How to Derail a Debate 101"

Wasn't there something about Michele Bachmann somewhere in this thread? Oh there it is - in the title. Why is nobody capable of staying on topic anymore? Invariably, the conversation switches to "libtards" this, and "neocons" that. Why on earth does it HAVE to devolve into that nonsense!?!?

 

[b.c.]

Someone in this thread sure got high marks in "How to Derail a Debate 101"

Wasn't there something about Michele Bachmann somewhere in this thread? Oh there it is - in the title. Why is nobody capable of staying on topic anymore? Invariably, the conversation switches to "libtards" this, and "neocons" that. Why on earth does it HAVE to devolve into that nonsense!?!?

I agree it has devolved somewhat into a more generalized political posturing and ideological bantering, to which I've already stated I'd have no more to add.

But inasmuch as I started the thread, I'd offer that the topic is about political ideology, if Bachmann's comments are a reflection of such, which I believe they are.

If you recall the gist of the original comments was the mindset of Bachmann, the result of disseminating information that had no basis in data, and the overall discussion of the merits or faults of such a position.

When asked by one of the posters here what I thought of a Bachmann comment, I offered that it (the comment re. the number of states) was no doubt an error. I even agreed with her position against state mandated vaccines, though I further added that what is in a candidate's heart and mind is of greater importance to me.

The vaccine was not the focal point. It was the motivating factors, thought processes, and political ideology that drives Bachmann's (and other candidates') words and actions. I personally found none of the subsequent comments to be way "off topic".

 

[Upperdown]

The
...I disagree.

Well, wasn't that a huge waste of your time.

You can't prove your points, so you require everyone else to disprove them. If you can't do it, then they aren't proven, they are just baseless assertions.

Despite providing you with a link to the founder of the Tea Party saying "we don't like racists" you still say 'yep dey are racist', then you excuse members of your own party.

Conclusion:

No matter what Republicans/Tea Party say or do you'll always counter with "they are racists" because it's politically expedient. This hurts your party in ways you wont know until its over.

Even though rich people/corporations clearly create jobs its better that they don't and they also don't have their money, it makes liberals feel better.

Despire direct evidence to the contrary (Boehner Sides with Obama on Middle-Class Tax Cut) you will continue to believe that only your lord and savior wants to cut taxes for the middle class. That evil Boehner wants tax cuts for everyone, what a jerk!

And, btw, Obama didn't "cave" to interests, he is has these ideas himself. They are his own. He didn't have to cave, he came up with the idea. I love your little, and pathetic, excuse for anytime Obama does something you don't like

Finally, if you're a racist and in the Democrat party you are a hero. If you are not a racist and in the Republican party you are a racist.

I actually believe that liberals are the manifestation of mad cow disease. There is few other explanations.

 

[b.c.]

^ It's "dey IS..." If you're going to simulate "old Negro dialect" at least do it right. :tounge-in-cheek: and if Obama ideas are aligned with the GOP re. business regulations, and didn't cave as you suggest, that would make him at least more of a centrist than you'll allow, wouldn't it?

In short, "Nanny nanny boo boo."

Generally (in sticking more with the original discussion) comments like those made by Bachmann and other GOP contenders signal, imo, a disconnect with certain realities, and a proclivity to make rash and unfounded statements for the purpose of propping up faulty ideology.

In a recent interview on a conservative talk program she warned about the rise of the Soviet Union, and before a group of supporters in Iowa, warned of Hezbollah missile sites in Cuba. (code words: commies, socialists, Cuba, cross reference: foreigners, "illegals"... the standard bill of fare). See:

Michele Bachmann Soviet Union | Michele Bachmann: Beware 'the Soviet Union' - Los Angeles Times

Michele Bachmann: Hezbollah Could Build 'Missile Sites' In Cuba

This is rabble rousing rhetoric. Disinformation designed to inflame and quickly bought into by a surprisingly large number of otherwise fairly sensible people.