the true face the anti-Obama movement

[taichiliberal]

Your confusion is understandable as the Far Right do not speak for conservatives. They do however, through the magic of media, get the majority of the attention. Same way Christians are all painted as the Westboro Baptist Church crazies. Those of us that disagree with Obama's idealogue policies of big government and govt being the answers to all of this country's woes are painted with the same broad liberal brush and lumped in with these fools on the far right just as the far left do with the liberal cause. Race seems to be a subject brought up more times by the liberals than the conservatives.

One would be confused if they bought your version of history. You seem to forget the FACT that it was Ronald Reagan that lifted the tent flap and let the wingnut Christian fundamentalist onto the GOP campaign stage. Hell, Nixon warned about that to no avail. Since then, we've seen "God" being used as an excuse and justification by various politicos and pundits for neocon driven GOP policies. The old chestnut of "big government" is truly tragic, being that "big government" in terms of Reaganomics, the Patriot Act, don't seem to concern the Obama critics from the conservative seats. "Race" via buzz phrases and innuendo has been barked by the likes of Buchanan and Kern LONG before Obama came on the scene. Neocon parrots, teabaggers and the like have been video documented using such bigoted and racist innuendos and assertions....when others point out, the absurd tactic of calling the critics, "racist" is used...but no one is buying it.

Obama's faults lie with his inexperience as a leader and as a non partisan president. The love affair the media has had with him since campaign allowed him to be the least vetted presidential hopeful ever. To completely ignore his past relationships with terrorist (Ayers and Dorn), Slum Lord Tony Rezko and racist preacher Wright were all but given passes by the media.

Newsflash for you....all the names you just dropped were discussed, examined and resolved BEFORE the conclusion of the 2008 election. The PEOPLE weren't buying the neocon smear job, and only the most bitter and insipidly stubborn anti-Obama people are still barking that nonsense...as YOU are doing here.

Bottom line, with todays economic problems and no real improvement (seen the unemployment numbers posted this week?), the facts are Obama is and will go down in history below Carter. He owns every cent of the increase to our deficit (govt spent more in Feb 11 than all of 2007). His love for big govt, unions and hatred for oil, coal and etc have further divided this country. Not to mention for all the talk of a post racial president, there is a deeper divide within the races as ever.


Bottom line: you leave out a few facts: like the Party of No fighting to continue the economic policies that put us in this mess in the first place....that Obama took two wars and a medical perscription plan off the credit card and onto the national budget, where they belonged....the neocon love of the fallacy of free market solving all problems, tax breaks for the rich, privatization, deregulation, outsourcing and off shore bank accounts....


Rather than sweeping generalizations and grade school name calling (tea baggers), your argument would be somewhat stronger without though far from accurate. The term racist is only used now to stifle debate in an attempt to distract from the failed presidency of Obama.

Teabaggers got their name when at one of the first astro-turfed rallies funded by Dick Armey's Freedomworks and helpfully organized by Fox News pundits, a woman raised a picket sign that read, "Tea bag Obama before he Tea bags You". Sounds like that woman was a teabagger to me!

No one is trying to "stifle" a debate. If you don't like the racist and bigoted bilge spewing from the mouths of Kern and Buchanan, then go bitch at them, because I sure as hell didn't put a gun to their heads to say those things.

Neither of which are Tea Party members. I never stated they were, I merely pointed to the Fact that what they said could be found in the many documentations of teabagger rallies. The term racist has no meaning any longer and I doubt those that spout the word often, have not clue as to the true definition. Newsflash....your limited experience in the world has NOTHING to do with reality. Only a stubborn fool or a die hard revisionist or someone merely ignorant of the evidence would deny racism in the USA in the face of documented FACTS:

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECIDES THAT INSURANCE REDLINING DATA MUST BE MADE PUBLIC
Insurers Fought Disclosure By Claiming Data That Could Expose Discrimination Was A Trade Secret

Major Victory in California Insurance Redlining Lawsuit

Race Discrimination Case Headlines
Race Discrimination Cases - EEONews - Employment Law Case Headlines

BTW the famous documented evidence of racial slurs hurled at the politicians during the Obamacare vote, NEVER happened. There was no such documented proof though accusations were flying. Even with a money reward offered, the proof still remains missing. Breitbart is a proven fraud, so don't take his reward offer seriously. If you speak of the few nuts in every protest whether left or right, you do not speak of the masses.

By the way, you're repeating a neocon lie: Here, for your education:

CNN's Crowley confirms Tea Party protesters yelled "anti-gay slurs" at Rep. Frank "more than once"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYRLeJw1aG8&feature=related]YouTube - Tea Party Hate and Spit Targets Blacks and Democrats[/ame]


Tea Party Protestors Hurl Racial and Sexual Slurs at Congressmen
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msjxC9NEN9E]YouTube - Tea Party Protestors Hurl Racial and Sexual Slurs at Congressmen[/ame]



In a UCLA study (not exactly right wing), the findings were that most Tea Party signs were not racist. UCLA study: Most tea party signs not racist - National post-partisan | Examiner.com

I never said all Teabaggers were racists, now did I? But you sure as hell have a lot of them that did this, and it wasn't readily condemned by Tea Party leadership. Observe and learn:
Right-wing media attempt to erase "bigoted statements" from the tea party movement | Media Matters for America

Keep trying to paint them as such and their strength will only grow. They were dismissed early on and because of that party, the Repubs were able to take back the house. I wish for the left to continue the baseless bashing as it serves greatly in helping the movement. The continuing name calling and false accusations from the left continue to help too.

Dream on, pal. Here's a little reality check for you:

The Incredibly Shrinking Tea Party Rallies
The Incredibly Shrinking Tea Party Rallies | Renaissance Post

 

[Zona]

Sally Kern is right

sally kern is a jackass...and?

you act as if this is some huge event that closes the books. You now have the Pearl of Wisdom, that nugget from which you apparently draw comfort and reinforces your pathetic myopia, so you can make yourself feel good, so as to excuse poor mgt.....great, feel better now? Enjoy the soma.

 

[taichiliberal]

Sally Kern is right

sally kern is a jackass...and?

you act as if this is some huge event that closes the books. You now have the Pearl of Wisdom, that nugget from which you apparently draw comfort and reinforces your pathetic myopia, so you can make yourself feel good, so as to excuse poor mgt.....great, feel better now? Enjoy the soma.

Posts #22, 30 and 41

 

[taichiliberal]

How many DAYS you going on about this NOW? It didn't get the response you wanted so you had to drag it back up and continue. I guess that shows you how much FOLKS grew tired of it, so just who is it THAT NEEDS TO GROW UP..
Here's some entertainment for you, take your mind off the FAUX outrage you have. ENJOY.

Posts #15, 56, 90, 92, 94 clearly shows the intellectual impotence of Stephanie, folks. Also, if she's so fed up with my posts and threads, why does she take time and effort to read and comment on them? Clearly, Stephanie is just obsessed and angry that I make a fool of her time and again.....as I did in other incarnations on other discussion boards over the years. Now let's watch for yet another childish Stephanie dodge/lie/denial.

You don't find it just a little bit pathetic that you need to point out your 'wins'? I do. Cuz, I just read through this thread and you made yourself look like the fool you are time and again.

But.... at least you're consistent.

Ahhh, California Girl...yet another intellectually bankrupt neocon clown who can't debate worth a damn. Notice how Calif Girl AVOIDS discussing any of the points of information and rebuttal made in the discussion, yet feels compelled to just tell us all that as she doesn't like me. Oh, how shall I stand the strain!

 

[IanC]

Having seen this faulty line of reasoning in previous threads by TL, I researched logical fallacies to see which category this belongs to but could find no match. I therefore concluded that TL seems to have invented a novel form of faulty argumentation. To wit, responding to a post by claiming to have already won the argument in a previous post, or series of posts, that when reviewed turn out to be inconclusive, disproven, or entirely non-existent. This devious debating device usually appears after the thread has grown in size to where readers won't bother to go back and research the underpinnings of the self-proclaimed victory. I think it should be named, so that it can be readily identified when employed in the future, something like Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum.

I see taichiliberal is still presenting his Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum as a "win"

 

[taichiliberal]

Having seen this faulty line of reasoning in previous threads by TL, I researched logical fallacies to see which category this belongs to but could find no match. I therefore concluded that TL seems to have invented a novel form of faulty argumentation. To wit, responding to a post by claiming to have already won the argument in a previous post, or series of posts, that when reviewed turn out to be inconclusive, disproven, or entirely non-existent. This devious debating device usually appears after the thread has grown in size to where readers won't bother to go back and research the underpinnings of the self-proclaimed victory. I think it should be named, so that it can be readily identified when employed in the future, something like Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum.

I see taichiliberal is still presenting his Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum as a "win"

Ahh, once again Tweedle Dumb giving props to Tweedle Dumber. Like all failed neocon propagandists and wanna-be David Dukes, IanC is reduced to repeating his BS. Post #137 is IanC's epitath on this thread, folks....let's watch our Bell Curved IanC continue to dig his grave.

 

[IanC]

Having seen this faulty line of reasoning in previous threads by TL, I researched logical fallacies to see which category this belongs to but could find no match. I therefore concluded that TL seems to have invented a novel form of faulty argumentation. To wit, responding to a post by claiming to have already won the argument in a previous post, or series of posts, that when reviewed turn out to be inconclusive, disproven, or entirely non-existent. This devious debating device usually appears after the thread has grown in size to where readers won't bother to go back and research the underpinnings of the self-proclaimed victory. I think it should be named, so that it can be readily identified when employed in the future, something like Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum.

I see taichiliberal is still presenting his Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum as a "win"

it should be easy enough to prove me wrong if you are right taichiliberal. all you have to do is quote Kern, give your reasons why you think she is wrong, and then respond on topic to my rebuttal of your position. simple debate.

but you havent done so in the past and I dont believe you will do so now.

 

[The Gadfly]

Only an idiot would deny the content of the two videos I presented.....Radioman fits that bill to a T. Let's watch the radioman dance the intellectually bankrupt neocon shuffle!

Fail.

All you proved is that there are racist asshats in the world. I'll stop the presses for you.

What you have not proven is that everyone who is against Obama is a racist asshat.

Logic and you, never shall the two meet.

Learn to read, my dear mentally stunted Radioman....I stated that Buchanan and Kern voiced what's on the mind of a MANY in the teabagger/oather/birther/neocon, etc. that have spewed similar BS over the years.....never said it was "everyone who is against Obama", and I defy you to produce the post where I did in no uncertain terms. If you can't, my dear radioman, then you're just broadcasting static.

Nice weasel words. No, you didn't directly say it (you'd have been properly called on THAT at once, and you know it); no, what you did is try to establish just such a bogus "fact" by implying it in your OP. It's not anymore factual do do that, and then plead innocence-just sneakier. I'm not having any of it; a lie by implication is still a lie, and your intent was quite evident here. You implied precisely what you are accused of implying, and you did it deliberately, with malice aforethought. Regardless of semantics, your intent here is crystal clear. Own it, or shut up!

 

[taichiliberal]

Fail.

All you proved is that there are racist asshats in the world. I'll stop the presses for you.

What you have not proven is that everyone who is against Obama is a racist asshat.

Logic and you, never shall the two meet.

Learn to read, my dear mentally stunted Radioman....I stated that Buchanan and Kern voiced what's on the mind of a MANY in the teabagger/oather/birther/neocon, etc. that have spewed similar BS over the years.....never said it was "everyone who is against Obama", and I defy you to produce the post where I did in no uncertain terms. If you can't, my dear radioman, then you're just broadcasting static.

Nice weasel words. No, you didn't directly say it (you'd have been properly called on THAT at once, and you know it); no, what you did is try to establish just such a bogus "fact" by implying it in your OP. It's not anymore factual do do that, and then plead innocence-just sneakier. I'm not having any of it; a lie by implication is still a lie, and your intent was quite evident here. You implied precisely what you are accused of implying, and you did it deliberately, with malice aforethought. Regardless of semantics, your intent here is crystal clear. Own it, or shut up!

Evidently, YOU didn't read before or beyond the post you are commenting on. Had you done so, you would have read the responses, read the source links, that prove my point. This is why I use the phrase "chronology of the posts" with pseudo-intellectual clowns like you, Gadfly....because it's what you don't read and what you try to ignore always becomes your undoing.

Like Radioman, YOU cannot provide proof in no uncertain terms of your accusation....and like your equally brain dead compadre, the audience is to accept YOUR bogus supposition and conjecture regarding what I wrote, as fact. Sorry bunky, but that dog of yours won't fly.

What YOU are not having any of, my silly Gadfly, is the simple FACT that YOU cannot logically or factually defend or prove the swill that froths from the mouths of Buchanan and Kern as valid. Kern already copped an apology, because she knows what an ass she would look like when asked to publically pony up proof of her assertions. Pity your insipid stubborness won't spare you that fate. Carry on.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Like Radioman, YOU cannot provide proof in no uncertain terms of your accusation....

You lie, lie, and lie again....

Your thread title, dipshit.

 

[taichiliberal]

Having seen this faulty line of reasoning in previous threads by TL, I researched logical fallacies to see which category this belongs to but could find no match. I therefore concluded that TL seems to have invented a novel form of faulty argumentation. To wit, responding to a post by claiming to have already won the argument in a previous post, or series of posts, that when reviewed turn out to be inconclusive, disproven, or entirely non-existent. This devious debating device usually appears after the thread has grown in size to where readers won't bother to go back and research the underpinnings of the self-proclaimed victory. I think it should be named, so that it can be readily identified when employed in the future, something like Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum.

I see taichiliberal is still presenting his Argumentum Ad Absurdis Tachiliberalum as a "win"

it should be easy enough to prove me wrong if you are right taichiliberal. all you have to do is quote Kern, give your reasons why you think she is wrong, and then respond on topic to my rebuttal of your position. simple debate.

but you havent done so in the past and I dont believe you will do so now.

Post #1 contains EVERYTHING that Kern stated and concluded regarding black folk, Afirmative Action and incarceration.
Post #5 contains my examples of why Kern's statements and conclusions are bogus.
Post #122, 132, 137 contain my systematically deconstructing IanC's attempts to avoid the simple matters of history and fact regarding black folk in America that totally debunks Kern's blatherings. They also demonstrate, IanC's insipid stubborness and intellectual cowardice as he refuses to explain how he defends Kern's (or Buchanan's, for that matter) statements in lieu of my responses, or in general. IanC can't refute or disprove my responses, IanC just doesn't like them, hence IanC continued parroting.

But, like all failed sheet wearing propagandist with delusions of pseudo-intellectualism a'la David Duke, IanC will just avoid what he doesn't like and keep repeating himself.....somewhat akin to those "end of the world" hucksters and idiots, who just keep trundling along the same path no matter how many times they're proven wrong. Or maybe IanC will make yet another false accusation to try and divert from his folly. Whatever...carry on, bunky.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But, like all failed sheet wearing propagandist with delusions of pseudo-intellectualism a'la David Duke, IanC will just avoid what he doesn't like and keep repeating himself.

Kinda like you, huh.

 

[taichiliberal]

But, like all failed sheet wearing propagandist with delusions of pseudo-intellectualism a'la David Duke, IanC will just avoid what he doesn't like and keep repeating himself.

Kinda like you, huh.

No, it's actually kinda like the chronology of the posts showing me making a fool out of YOU on this thread, DTMB, and now having to endure your childish DTMB sour grapes and games. Carry on.

 

[IanC]

Sally Kern is right

Then how does she explain the generations black cops, lawyers, scientists, military officers, engineers, businessmen, firemen, politicians, etc.? Too many to say "exception to the rule".

But hey, according to you, she's "right" about women also. I wonder how your female family members and friends feel about this one:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V-l97AEFnk]YouTube - Rep. Sally Kern (R-OK): 'Women Usually Don't Want To Work As Hard As Men'[/ame]


I don't know which is more pathetic...Kern or the fools who support her. Carry on.

post number 5, the one in which taichiliberal professes to have laid down his argument about why Kern was wrong.

he refused to respond when questioned whether it was true that blacks failed to become qualified for higher status professions at anything like their proportion of the population. he also neglected to respond to whether women choose jobs which allow them more flexibility to work and also have families.

reality is considerably different than taichiliberal's distorted memory. or he is trying to pull the same BS again.

 

[taichiliberal]

Sally Kern is right

Then how does she explain the generations black cops, lawyers, scientists, military officers, engineers, businessmen, firemen, politicians, etc.? Too many to say "exception to the rule".

But hey, according to you, she's "right" about women also. I wonder how your female family members and friends feel about this one:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V-l97AEFnk]YouTube - Rep. Sally Kern (R-OK): 'Women Usually Don't Want To Work As Hard As Men'[/ame]


I don't know which is more pathetic...Kern or the fools who support her. Carry on.

post number 5, the one in which taichiliberal professes to have laid down his argument about why Kern was wrong.

How so? Just because our Bell Curved Brained IanC says so, then we're all suppose to just bob our heads in agreement? Once again, IanC, like Kern, thinks that he can BS his way past a burden of proof by just stating his opinion or supposition and conjecture. Well, Kern avoided the burden of proof by apologizing...but IanC's foolish, stubborn pride and general dishonesty won't allow him to follow suit. No problem, I like to see David Duke wanna be's like IanC repeat their defeated bleatings ad nauseum.

he refused to respond when questioned whether it was true that blacks failed to become qualified for higher status professions at anything like their proportion of the population.

Ahhh, the David Duke wanna-be flexes his limp muscle. Notice folks, how IanC tries to move the goal post to deflect the indefensible status of Kern's initial statement (see Post #1 on this thread). Kern initially stated that incarceration of black folk in her State is high because in high school black kids (and she gave a generalization based on her personal, limited experience) figure that the state will take care of them (implication: by welfare, affirmative action), so they don't need to study.

Kern NEVER gave any statistical proof via questionaires, test, social service recorded inquiries, etc. that backs her statement And NEITHER doe IanC. Instead, IanC joins Kern in the insinuation area by phrasing a question with a forgone conclusion.....that there is a statistical standard (set by parties unknown) of "higher status profession" that should have be met by ethnic/racial groups in this country that reflects genetic inferior/superior stands. A fascinating concept, as you would first have to establish who sets the norm, what are the criteria, time frames, resources, economic/social influences, historical standing and treatment of said group, etc., etc. And after all of that is considered, then one would STILL have to ask ones' self if Kern's statment would be appropo to this "standard" that IanC would create.

It doesn't...and IanC is still on the hook to explain to all how are Kern's statements valid given the historical evidence of black folk succeeding in this society before and after affirmative action, as I gave a general example of.

Bottom line: Kern was caught in public giving off a racist mind fart, and IanC is desperately telling everyone it wasn't her.

he also neglected to respond to whether women choose jobs which allow them more flexibility to work and also have families.

Did IanC ask that question? Did any of his like minded cronies? If they did, I might have missed it, and would have to see the post. But my answer would be this: Of course SOME women make that choice. But would that choice be justification for defundng day care centers that allowed other women to work longer hours? Would that choice be justification to deny other women the right to promotion or equal pay to men? Should women be penalized for taking time off to attend a family? Like Kern, IanC loves to create these dead end scenarios by phrasing a question which gives only a myopic view of a situation. But a simple demand for burden of proof, or use of critical thinking taught to 7th graders can easily pearce the smoke being blown by the likes of Kern and IanC.
reality is considerably different than taichiliberal's distorted memory. or he is trying to pull the same BS again.

And as we can see here and in the chronology of the posts, our intellectual coward IanC STILL cannot logically or factually defend Kern's bigoted blatherings...but IanC will just keep blowing smoke and claiming that smoke is the REAL issue....while IanC trys to slander those who give answers he just doesn't like and cannot disprove. Let's watch IanC do the same dance steps he's already done.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3668088-post151.html