The New Government Approved Racists On The Left

[Wildman]

ALL LIBERFOOLS ARE,

 

[Jarhead]

If you are unwilling to admit that some of the resistance comes from racist then you're lying to yourself. You've seen the "Dont Re-Nig" bumper stickers, the watermelon emails, the comparisions to monkeys from the right. The difference is you see it and excuse it and believe that because you offer an excuse that means it never happened.

It did...Before Obama made one policy the right declared their goal was to make him a one term POTUS and he was sworn in on the Koran. Now, why did they do that if this was about opposing his policies before his policies were introduced?

excuse me?

Are there racists out there? Hell yeah....

But I am not referring to the dirtbags that are found in ALL ideologies....

I am referring to POLITICIANS accusing opposing POLITICIANS as being against liberal ideas of a black president because he is black.

And, as expected, you divert to some redneck in the backwoods of Tennessee who has a bumper sticker that I, personally, would have removed if I had the chance.

FWIW I was referring to Mudwhistle, he is a lying troll. To deny Racism is not a characteristic of the Republican Party base is naïve at best. That even Racists know being racist is not something to be proud of is why they speak in code. Listen between the lines, the evidence is there and it is probative.

A characteristic of the GOP base?

You are not worth the time. You are so wrapped up in racism, you don't even know what racism is anymore.

Get an education. Then get back to me.

 

[RKMBrown]

.

The pain and the damage and the social isolation pushed onto millions of Americans by the American Left, based on nothing more than the color of their skin, is an American tragedy.

We're now multiple generations into this.

Worse, not only with Left deny that, they won't stop.

.

They can't stop. If they do they loose over half of their supporters.

Agreed.

I do, however, believe that many of them are sincere. They just don't see the ramifications of their actions.

They're too busy "caring" to see the de facto racism of those actions.

.

True... it's not often that the parent of a spoiled brat is capable of using introspection and/or coming to understanding of what has made the child into a spoiled brat. Then there are the ones that do it on purpose out of spite for all and for power, like Hillary. To be fair, I think Bush also used the same types of tricks to get what he wanted. Just put some sugar on it and make them swallow.

 

[Jarhead]

The best is putting up quotes from random people as "proof" and someone called them a name. Boo-hoo discrimination is worse than name calling ya bitch lol

well....putting up quotes from random people is a bit more genuine that saying things like...

"word on the street is Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years"...

and

"people are telling the Irish it would be easy if it were just you guys".....

LMAO...and those quotes were from people you support politically while the random people quotes were from a poster on a forum who you likely will never meet.

Yeah except its not better. Some bitch twitter account isnt proof of anything but at least you tried

I don't recall some bitch twitter account getting my support on this forum or in the voting booth.

Yet you support people like Reid and Pelosi who use terms like "word on the street" and "I hear they are saying" to start and spread hateful rumors.

And I didn't try anything....I don't care what some bitch twitter account spews....I didn't even post it..

But you are fine with the childish rumor spreading of Reid and Pelosi which speaks volumes about your integrity.

 

[Pete7469]

If you are unwilling to admit that some of the resistance comes from racist then you're lying to yourself. You've seen the "Dont Re-Nig" bumper stickers, the watermelon emails, the comparisions to monkeys from the right. The difference is you see it and excuse it and believe that because you offer an excuse that means it never happened.

It did...Before Obama made one policy the right declared their goal was to make him a one term POTUS and he was sworn in on the Koran. Now, why did they do that if this was about opposing his policies before his policies were introduced?

excuse me?

Are there racists out there? Hell yeah....

But I am not referring to the dirtbags that are found in ALL ideologies....

I am referring to POLITICIANS accusing opposing POLITICIANS as being against liberal ideas of a black president because he is black.

And, as expected, you divert to some redneck in the backwoods of Tennessee who has a bumper sticker that I, personally, would have removed if I had the chance.

How else do you explain wanting him to be a one term president before introducing ONE bill or policy?

Now you can say its NOT because of racism and no proof is required. I can say it IS because of racism and no proof required. The difference is I am willing to admit that it cant be ALL because of racism while you like to pretend that NONE of it could POSSIBLY be because of racism.

Do you see the difference? An absolute conclusion such as yours requires proof that you cannot possibly prove so stop saying it

My God the stupidity of these bed wetters is terrifying. We really do need to start getting rid of some of the safety precautions that keep retards like this from driving in front of on coming trains.

Your moonbat messiah didn't need to "introduce one bill or policy".

First of all, Presidents don't draft or "introduce" bills. The legislature does that. An elementary understanding of civics is something you should endeavor to achieve.

Another baby step into critical thinking skills may lead you to the understanding that we heard months of insipid vacuous blather from both the moonbat messiah and the hildabeast trying to out-stupid each other during the democrook primaries and attract the bed wetter vote.

Your moonbat messiah won the stupidity race, and that's all the "policy introduction" anyone needed to conclude he shouldn't even be a one term president.

Sadly, %53 of the total voters said stupid was better. Of course in a society that places any value on "people" like Kim Kardashian it's no surprise that stupidity can win by such slim margins.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please tell me what conservative values and initiatives are "anti equality"...

And don't go into some crap about "conservative policies shows their hatred for women, blacks, the poor and the elderly"...

Back it up with substance.

The consensus support by conservatives on this forum to support the right of businesses to discriminate both in service and in hiring.

This board?

You are aware, I am sure, that this board is by no means a true debate board.

I'm aware that there are plenty of conservatives on this board, and I am confident of my assessment that most of them believe that a business owner should:

1. have the right to serve or not serve anyone he chooses, for any reason.

2. have the right to hire or not hire anyone he chooses, for any reason.

Both of those views are an endorsement of a person's right to treat others UNEQUALLY, not equally,

and both of the above are endorsed by most conservatives on this board.

 

[RKMBrown]

excuse me?

Are there racists out there? Hell yeah....

But I am not referring to the dirtbags that are found in ALL ideologies....

I am referring to POLITICIANS accusing opposing POLITICIANS as being against liberal ideas of a black president because he is black.

And, as expected, you divert to some redneck in the backwoods of Tennessee who has a bumper sticker that I, personally, would have removed if I had the chance.

How else do you explain wanting him to be a one term president before introducing ONE bill or policy?

Now you can say its NOT because of racism and no proof is required. I can say it IS because of racism and no proof required. The difference is I am willing to admit that it cant be ALL because of racism while you like to pretend that NONE of it could POSSIBLY be because of racism.

Do you see the difference? An absolute conclusion such as yours requires proof that you cannot possibly prove so stop saying it

My God the stupidity of these bed wetters is terrifying. We really do need to start getting rid of some of the safety precautions that keep retards like this from driving in front of on coming trains.

Your moonbat messiah didn't need to "introduce one bill or policy".

First of all, Presidents don't draft or "introduce" bills. The legislature does that. An elementary understanding of civics is something you should endeavor to achieve.

Another baby step into critical thinking skills may lead you to the understanding that we heard months of insipid vacuous blather from both the moonbat messiah and the hildabeast trying to out-stupid each other during the democrook primaries and attract the bed wetter vote.

Your moonbat messiah won the stupidity race, and that's all the "policy introduction" anyone needed to conclude he shouldn't even be a one term president.

Sadly, %53 of the total voters said stupid was better. Of course in a society that places any value on "people" like Kim Kardashian it's no surprise that stupidity can win by such slim margins.

Or 53% of the voters like being on welfare and voted for cash. Or... 5% of the voters who would have voted for the fiscal conservative instead voted for gay rights against the 100year old republican who said he did not support gays having the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Mr. H.]

We've got some major Libtard meltdowns going on here.

 

[Pete7469]

I wasn't talking to you cuntface.

The fact that you took offense to my observation is indeed a nice bonus though, so thanks for that.

Where do you get the idea I "took offense" to your post?

Furthermore your PUBLIC EXPRESION OF OPPINON can be commented on by anyone, just like the bonus of exposing just what an imbecile you are.

Your whining like a bitch gave the distinct impression that you were offended.

And now you're doing it again. You might want to work on that if you don't like giving that impression.

You might want to go fuck yourself if you think I give a shit what your vapid little mind gets an impression of.

 

[Pete7469]

We've got some major Libtard meltdowns going on here.

Yeah, I've been smiling all morning.

My face hasn't hurt this much since the last time I did acid.

 

[ClosedCaption]

excuse me?

Are there racists out there? Hell yeah....

But I am not referring to the dirtbags that are found in ALL ideologies....

I am referring to POLITICIANS accusing opposing POLITICIANS as being against liberal ideas of a black president because he is black.

And, as expected, you divert to some redneck in the backwoods of Tennessee who has a bumper sticker that I, personally, would have removed if I had the chance.

How else do you explain wanting him to be a one term president before introducing ONE bill or policy?

Now you can say its NOT because of racism and no proof is required. I can say it IS because of racism and no proof required. The difference is I am willing to admit that it cant be ALL because of racism while you like to pretend that NONE of it could POSSIBLY be because of racism.

Do you see the difference? An absolute conclusion such as yours requires proof that you cannot possibly prove so stop saying it

My God the stupidity of these bed wetters is terrifying. We really do need to start getting rid of some of the safety precautions that keep retards like this from driving in front of on coming trains.

Can we just take a moment to recognize that trains dont run on streets and the idiocy of this statement?

Your moonbat messiah didn't need to "introduce one bill or policy".

First of all, Presidents don't draft or "introduce" bills. The legislature does that. An elementary understanding of civics is something you should endeavor to achieve.

Another baby step into critical thinking skills may lead you to the understanding that we heard months of insipid vacuous blather from both the moonbat messiah and the hildabeast trying to out-stupid each other during the democrook primaries and attract the bed wetter vote.

Your moonbat messiah won the stupidity race, and that's all the "policy introduction" anyone needed to conclude he shouldn't even be a one term president.

Sadly, %53 of the total voters said stupid was better. Of course in a society that places any value on "people" like Kim Kardashian it's no surprise that stupidity can win by such slim margins.

So everyone is stupid is your argument? Well, read the avatar and stop. You're just a Edge wanna be with better paragraph structure

 

[Pete7469]

How else do you explain wanting him to be a one term president before introducing ONE bill or policy?

Now you can say its NOT because of racism and no proof is required. I can say it IS because of racism and no proof required. The difference is I am willing to admit that it cant be ALL because of racism while you like to pretend that NONE of it could POSSIBLY be because of racism.

Do you see the difference? An absolute conclusion such as yours requires proof that you cannot possibly prove so stop saying it

My God the stupidity of these bed wetters is terrifying. We really do need to start getting rid of some of the safety precautions that keep retards like this from driving in front of on coming trains.

Your moonbat messiah didn't need to "introduce one bill or policy".

First of all, Presidents don't draft or "introduce" bills. The legislature does that. An elementary understanding of civics is something you should endeavor to achieve.

Another baby step into critical thinking skills may lead you to the understanding that we heard months of insipid vacuous blather from both the moonbat messiah and the hildabeast trying to out-stupid each other during the democrook primaries and attract the bed wetter vote.

Your moonbat messiah won the stupidity race, and that's all the "policy introduction" anyone needed to conclude he shouldn't even be a one term president.

Sadly, %53 of the total voters said stupid was better. Of course in a society that places any value on "people" like Kim Kardashian it's no surprise that stupidity can win by such slim margins.

Or 53% of the voters like being on welfare and voted for cash. Or... 5% of the voters who would have voted for the fiscal conservative instead voted for gay rights against the 100year old republican who said he did not support gays having the same rights as everyone else.

I'm sure there are plenty of variables, but one thing I'm most sure of is that voters would have turned out in much greater numbers if the choice opposite of the moonbat messiah would have been a guy who was actually the opposite of the moonbat messiah.

Yet the republicrat elites wanted a "moderate" like their boy prince GWB, and far too many of us were sick to death of the neo-fascist Bush dynasty.

I myself figured an idiot along the lines of jimmy carter would usher in another Ronald Reagan or maybe something even better.

The end result was we ended up with worse that Carter, and a candidate in 2012 that somehow never won a significant percentage of republican support.

You know why the leftist media never attacked Romney till he was the "last man"?

Let the "moderates" tell us why.

That should be funny.

 

[Pete7469]

How else do you explain wanting him to be a one term president before introducing ONE bill or policy?

Now you can say its NOT because of racism and no proof is required. I can say it IS because of racism and no proof required. The difference is I am willing to admit that it cant be ALL because of racism while you like to pretend that NONE of it could POSSIBLY be because of racism.

Do you see the difference? An absolute conclusion such as yours requires proof that you cannot possibly prove so stop saying it

My God the stupidity of these bed wetters is terrifying. We really do need to start getting rid of some of the safety precautions that keep retards like this from driving in front of on coming trains.

Can we just take a moment to recognize that trains dont run on streets and the idiocy of this statement?

Can we take a moment to recognize that trains run across streets all over the country? DEEERRRPPP!!!

Your moonbat messiah didn't need to "introduce one bill or policy".

First of all, Presidents don't draft or "introduce" bills. The legislature does that. An elementary understanding of civics is something you should endeavor to achieve.

Another baby step into critical thinking skills may lead you to the understanding that we heard months of insipid vacuous blather from both the moonbat messiah and the hildabeast trying to out-stupid each other during the democrook primaries and attract the bed wetter vote.

Your moonbat messiah won the stupidity race, and that's all the "policy introduction" anyone needed to conclude he shouldn't even be a one term president.

Sadly, %53 of the total voters said stupid was better. Of course in a society that places any value on "people" like Kim Kardashian it's no surprise that stupidity can win by such slim margins.

So everyone is stupid is your argument? Well, read the avatar and stop. You're just a Edge wanna be with better paragraph structure

No, you're stupid of course but the argument is far too difficult for you to comprehend.

 

[Jarhead]

The consensus support by conservatives on this forum to support the right of businesses to discriminate both in service and in hiring.

This board?

You are aware, I am sure, that this board is by no means a true debate board.

I'm aware that there are plenty of conservatives on this board, and I am confident of my assessment that most of them believe that a business owner should:

1. have the right to serve or not serve anyone he chooses, for any reason.

2. have the right to hire or not hire anyone he chooses, for any reason.

Both of those views are an endorsement of a person's right to treat others UNEQUALLY, not equally,

and both of the above are endorsed by most conservatives on this board.

If you see this board as a true cross section of America, then you are quite naïve. Most liberals on this board are far left fringe liberals and most conservatives on this board are far right fringe conservatives.....and both sides, as I have said, will argue a point just to argue.

You need to take some time away from this board and see the REAL America.

Curious....I am a conservative. I have been posting on this board long enough for you to know my thinking.

Do you think I have racial tendencies?

 

[g5000]

I see mudwhistle has one of these:

 

[RKMBrown]

My God the stupidity of these bed wetters is terrifying. We really do need to start getting rid of some of the safety precautions that keep retards like this from driving in front of on coming trains.

Your moonbat messiah didn't need to "introduce one bill or policy".

First of all, Presidents don't draft or "introduce" bills. The legislature does that. An elementary understanding of civics is something you should endeavor to achieve.

Another baby step into critical thinking skills may lead you to the understanding that we heard months of insipid vacuous blather from both the moonbat messiah and the hildabeast trying to out-stupid each other during the democrook primaries and attract the bed wetter vote.

Your moonbat messiah won the stupidity race, and that's all the "policy introduction" anyone needed to conclude he shouldn't even be a one term president.

Sadly, %53 of the total voters said stupid was better. Of course in a society that places any value on "people" like Kim Kardashian it's no surprise that stupidity can win by such slim margins.

Or 53% of the voters like being on welfare and voted for cash. Or... 5% of the voters who would have voted for the fiscal conservative instead voted for gay rights against the 100year old republican who said he did not support gays having the same rights as everyone else.

I'm sure there are plenty of variables, but one thing I'm most sure of is that voters would have turned out in much greater numbers if the choice opposite of the moonbat messiah would have been a guy who was actually the opposite of the moonbat messiah.

Yet the republicrat elites wanted a "moderate" like their boy prince GWB, and far too many of us were sick to death of the neo-fascist Bush dynasty.

I myself figured an idiot along the lines of jimmy carter would usher in another Ronald Reagan or maybe something even better.

The end result was we ended up with worse that Carter, and a candidate in 2012 that somehow never won a significant percentage of republican support.

You know why the leftist media never attacked Romney till he was the "last man"?

Let the "moderates" tell us why.

That should be funny.

Our voting system is completely broken. Should be able to rank the candidates on a ballot instead of just picking one. This system we have allows a ballot to have 10 conservatives and one semi-socialist that none of the conservatives actually want, but because the 10 conservatives split the conservative vote the socialist wins. Romney won in part because of all the democrats that voted for him in the primaries. Funny? no, it's not funny.

Will we fix the system? Hell no the two parties would never allow it cause then we could vote for other candidates without our votes being a vote for the "other side."

 

[RKMBrown]

This board?

You are aware, I am sure, that this board is by no means a true debate board.

I'm aware that there are plenty of conservatives on this board, and I am confident of my assessment that most of them believe that a business owner should:

1. have the right to serve or not serve anyone he chooses, for any reason.

2. have the right to hire or not hire anyone he chooses, for any reason.

Both of those views are an endorsement of a person's right to treat others UNEQUALLY, not equally,

and both of the above are endorsed by most conservatives on this board.

If you see this board as a true cross section of America, then you are quite naïve. Most liberals on this board are far left fringe liberals and most conservatives on this board are far right fringe conservatives.....and both sides, as I have said, will argue a point just to argue.

You need to take some time away from this board and see the REAL America.

Curious....I am a conservative. I have been posting on this board long enough for you to know my thinking.

Do you think I have racial tendencies?

I call BS. What you are talking about is the fact that most people won't tell you what they really think to your face. Especially the cowards.

 

[Antares]

What a load of complete unmitigated crap.

First off you cannot be, by DEFINITION, a LIBERAL and a RACIST.

That's not what the WORD means.

Additionally?

This is bullshit.

My nomination for the most stupid post of the day....and it is early yet.

 

[Pete7469]

Or 53% of the voters like being on welfare and voted for cash. Or... 5% of the voters who would have voted for the fiscal conservative instead voted for gay rights against the 100year old republican who said he did not support gays having the same rights as everyone else.

I'm sure there are plenty of variables, but one thing I'm most sure of is that voters would have turned out in much greater numbers if the choice opposite of the moonbat messiah would have been a guy who was actually the opposite of the moonbat messiah.

Yet the republicrat elites wanted a "moderate" like their boy prince GWB, and far too many of us were sick to death of the neo-fascist Bush dynasty.

I myself figured an idiot along the lines of jimmy carter would usher in another Ronald Reagan or maybe something even better.

The end result was we ended up with worse that Carter, and a candidate in 2012 that somehow never won a significant percentage of republican support.

You know why the leftist media never attacked Romney till he was the "last man"?

Let the "moderates" tell us why.

That should be funny.

Our voting system is completely broken. Should be able to rank the candidates on a ballot instead of just picking one. This system we have allows a ballot to have 10 conservatives and one semi-socialist that none of the conservatives actually want, but because the 10 conservatives split the conservative vote the socialist wins. Romney won in part because of all the democrats that voted for him in the primaries. Funny? no, it's not funny.

Will we fix the system? Hell no the two parties would never allow it cause then we could vote for other candidates without our votes being a vote for the "other side."

No, I think things should go back to the original intent of the founders.

The Senators should be picked by state legislators.

The President should be selected by an uncorrupted electoral college.

The beauty pageant elections over the last 100 years have been a disaster.

 

[mudwhistle]

I see mudwhistle has one of these:

Yeah, and I'm not afraid to use it either.....