Conquer Club

Pics (of a sign) or it didn't happen.

King Doctor wrote:Pics (of a sign) or it didn't happen.

Go back to Dancing Mustard

?

Nobunaga wrote:... Interesting how every tea party related thread here is not about any actual issues.

...

.......and probably won't ever be. There's just too much of a disconnect between what the right's motivations are and the left's interpretation of those motivations. If you want to lower income taxes on the employer class, it's interpreted as being unfairly sympathetic to the rich at the expense of the poor. If you want to cut spending because huge deficits are unsustainable, then what you really want is to take social services away. Now the debate has got even more out of hand because our president happens to be black, and to oppose his policies are considered racist.

beezer wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Interesting how every tea party related thread here is not about any actual issues.

...

.......and probably won't ever be. There's just too much of a disconnect between what the right's motivations are and the left's interpretation of those motivations. If you want to lower income taxes on the employer class, it's interpreted as being unfairly sympathetic to the rich at the expense of the poor. If you want to cut spending because huge deficits are unsustainable, then what you really want is to take social services away. Now the debate has got even more out of hand because our president happens to be black, and to oppose his policies are considered racist.

I hated Bush and i laugh at Obama. I've never been called racist for laughing at Obama but i've been called "unAmerican" and "teh Libral" for making disparaging comments about Bush - look what happened to the Dixie Chicks. If you're one of the coweyed fuckwits who put and kept Bush in office then you deserve Obama - he never would've been elected if you flag waving jingotards hadn't created such a backlash.

As to "actual issues" i would say that racism is a very relevant issue. When Tea Baggers or any other right wing morons walk around with signs that are obviously racist (let's forget the ones that were debatable) then there's a major problem. The fact that the Tea Baggers haven't taken a strong stand against such racism would indicate that they're not all that worried about it. Why alienate all those racist voters amirite?

Yeah it's an issue. Trying to paint over the stain and blaming it on "political manipulation" is a good dodge though.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:Trying to paint over the stain and blaming it on "political manipulation" is a good dodge though.

Thanks, I'm trying my best.

beezer wrote:.......and probably won't ever be. There's just too much of a disconnect between what the right's motivations are and the left's interpretation of those motivations. If you want to lower income taxes on the employer class, it's interpreted as being unfairly sympathetic to the rich at the expense of the poor. If you want to cut spending because huge deficits are unsustainable, then what you really want is to take social services away.

You're basically right. And something clearly needs to happen. The problem is that neither "side" wants to take the political hit of making it happen. What I would personally like to see happen is a reasonable hike in taxes (of what nature and such up in the air, because I don't know enough about the "amount that can be raised" via each of the options) alongside some very real cuts in spending (social services plus the military are the two biggies that come to mind, but I'm sure there are other good areas...certainly pork spending, if that can be narrowed down)...I think that combination is our best way to attack the deficit.

Woodruff wrote:

beezer wrote:.......and probably won't ever be. There's just too much of a disconnect between what the right's motivations are and the left's interpretation of those motivations. If you want to lower income taxes on the employer class, it's interpreted as being unfairly sympathetic to the rich at the expense of the poor. If you want to cut spending because huge deficits are unsustainable, then what you really want is to take social services away.

You're basically right. And something clearly needs to happen. The problem is that neither "side" wants to take the political hit of making it happen. What I would personally like to see happen is a reasonable hike in taxes (of what nature and such up in the air, because I don't know enough about the "amount that can be raised" via each of the options) alongside some very real cuts in spending (social services plus the military are the two biggies that come to mind, but I'm sure there are other good areas...certainly pork spending, if that can be narrowed down)...I think that combination is our best way to attack the deficit.

It could work, assuming that people don't try to dodge what they actually owe. I heard once on some radio program that if everyone stopped trying to write-off so much and just paid what they should, then the national debt would be almost zero. Of course, if you eliminate the exemptions then people go crazy and protest. I know you probably disagree, but I believe that lowering tax rates actually increases revenue paid to the govt.

Debater wrote:Tea Baggers want to get rid of all Socialist Programs, except for Social Security, Medicare, VA Benefits and Senior Discounts and .....

The difference is that you pay into Social Security, Medicare, and VA (VA by providing services to the military)... you don't pay into free gov't provided health care unless you're a tax payer.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's actually quite a substantial difference.

notyou2 wrote:Viperovershoe, Bush had roots in England, did you see signs during the Iraq war protests telling him to return to England?

Please expand on this... what are Bush's roots in England? Was he there for a few months when he was in the National Guard?

He certainly didn't go to school and spend some of the most formative years of his life there.

So your comment means nothing.

Woodruff wrote:
You're basically right. And something clearly needs to happen. The problem is that neither "side" wants to take the political hit of making it happen. What I would personally like to see happen is a reasonable hike in taxes (of what nature and such up in the air, because I don't know enough about the "amount that can be raised" via each of the options) alongside some very real cuts in spending (social services plus the military are the two biggies that come to mind, but I'm sure there are other good areas...certainly pork spending, if that can be narrowed down)...I think that combination is our best way to attack the deficit.

You want a tax hike... good for you.

I don't want a tax hike till the Gov't first shows they can cut spending. When all unneccessary spending is cut... then we can talk about increasing taxes.

I would prefer a Flat Tax of 15% with no deductions whatsoever and severe penalties for under-the-table work.

jimboston wrote:He certainly didn't go to school and spend some of the most formative years of his life there.

Neither did Obama in Kenya soo…

the.killing.44 wrote:

jimboston wrote:He certainly didn't go to school and spend some of the most formative years of his life there.

Neither did Obama in Kenya soo…

Um... ok you got me. I was thinking Indonesia.

OK let me rephrase. George W. Bush's father wasn't from England.

So na na na na na naaa.

beezer wrote:It could work, assuming that people don't try to dodge what they actually owe. I heard once on some radio program that if everyone stopped trying to write-off so much and just paid what they should, then the national debt would be almost zero.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

beezer wrote:Of course, if you eliminate the exemptions then people go crazy and protest.

Probably - but I think that needs to happen...add that to what I said above, because it's a good idea. Or just make it a dang flat tax and get it over with.

beezer wrote:I know you probably disagree, but I believe that lowering tax rates actually increases revenue paid to the govt.

I don't necessarily disagree. I CAN see how that can potentially happen, sure...though I'm not convinced it WOULD happen as a given. I'm not educated enough on the subject to be able to strongly say one way or another.

jimboston wrote:I don't want a tax hike till the Gov't first shows they can cut spending.

I certainly don't blame you for that...you'll notice that was part and parcel of "what I want"...it's not like I ONLY wanted a tax hike.

jimboston wrote:I would prefer a Flat Tax of 15% with no deductions whatsoever and severe penalties for under-the-table work.

I love the idea of a flat tax also.

b.k. barunt wrote:The fact that the Tea Baggers haven't taken a strong stand against such racism would indicate that they're not all that worried about it.

This isn't directed specifically at b.k., but since he was the last person to mention it, I've chosen to quote him.

Is every Tea Party group expected to go on the news and make a denouncement every time an idiot brings a truly racist poster to an event? I'm sure that at most of the events, both the crowd and the podium guests actively work to remove the offending poster/person from the venue. Or they ask security to do it quietly so the racist can't get the audience they desire. Just because the NAACP has to hold a press conference when they accuse/denounce racism doesn't meant every Tea Party group has to.

Night Strike wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:The fact that the Tea Baggers haven't taken a strong stand against such racism would indicate that they're not all that worried about it.

This isn't directed specifically at b.k., but since he was the last person to mention it, I've chosen to quote him.

Is every Tea Party group expected to go on the news and make a denouncement every time an idiot brings a truly racist poster to an event? I'm sure that at most of the events, both the crowd and the podium guests actively work to remove the offending poster/person from the venue. Or they ask security to do it quietly so the racist can't get the audience they desire. Just because the NAACP has to hold a press conference when they accuse/denounce racism doesn't meant every Tea Party group has to.

I as an objective observer see racist signs popping up at Tea Bagger rallies. I do not see these signs being addressed and denounced by Tea Bagger leaders. If they don't address them and denounce them then i don't think it's unreasonable of me to think that they're not really all that concerned about them.


Honibaz

notyou2 wrote:

jimboston wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

This is no worse than posting images of George Bush as Alfred E. Newman (from Mad Magazine). Just because Erkel is black does not make this racist. If you are going to use pop cultural images to insult a politician you kinda have to use someone from the same race. No?

pimpdave wrote:

Not racist in any way.

Sure it is. Jim do you see any people that aren't of caucasian extraction? It's obviously a party for whites only. Oh, and religious white zealots are preferred judging by Dale's hat as he is a founding member I understand.

You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?

95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama

It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

ViperOverLord wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

jimboston wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

This is no worse than posting images of George Bush as Alfred E. Newman (from Mad Magazine). Just because Erkel is black does not make this racist. If you are going to use pop cultural images to insult a politician you kinda have to use someone from the same race. No?

pimpdave wrote:

Not racist in any way.

Sure it is. Jim do you see any people that aren't of caucasian extraction? It's obviously a party for whites only. Oh, and religious white zealots are preferred judging by Dale's hat as he is a founding member I understand.

You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?

95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama

It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

Really with this? Also... browns? Seriously?

ViperOverLord wrote:You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?
95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama
It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

Your presumption that being "f'ing informed" relates directly to not voting for Obama shows that you're the one viewing things from some sort of bias.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?
95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama
It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

Your presumption that being "f'ing informed" relates directly to not voting for Obama shows that you're the one viewing things from some sort of bias.

We all have our biases or political inclinations. But the bias I specifically spoke of was a racial bias that is obvious to anybody with 1/10th of a brain.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?
95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama
It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

Your presumption that being "f'ing informed" relates directly to not voting for Obama shows that you're the one viewing things from some sort of bias.

We all have our biases or political inclinations. But the bias I specifically spoke of was a racial bias that is obvious to anybody with 1/10th of a brain.

Tell me...do blacks and "browns" tend to be largely liberal or conservative?

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?
95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama
It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

Your presumption that being "f'ing informed" relates directly to not voting for Obama shows that you're the one viewing things from some sort of bias.

We all have our biases or political inclinations. But the bias I specifically spoke of was a racial bias that is obvious to anybody with 1/10th of a brain.

Tell me...do blacks and "browns" tend to be largely liberal or conservative?

I'm saying that racist politics is the bread and butter of Democrats and is very much gobbled my the racist masses that are intentionally kept in their place through a dishonest agenda designed to relegate them to the chains of poverty and ignorance.

Is there a reason that blacks is not in quotations and browns is in quotations? Do you not appreciate my parellel sentence construction? Are you mad that I did not choose to use cater to you through a presupposed vernacular?

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?
95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama
It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

Your presumption that being "f'ing informed" relates directly to not voting for Obama shows that you're the one viewing things from some sort of bias.

We all have our biases or political inclinations. But the bias I specifically spoke of was a racial bias that is obvious to anybody with 1/10th of a brain.

Tell me...do blacks and "browns" tend to be largely liberal or conservative?

I'm saying that racist politics is the bread and butter of Democrats and is very much gobbled my the racist masses that are intentionally kept in their place through a dishonest agenda designed to relegate them to the chains of poverty and ignorance.

Is there a reason that blacks is not in quotations and browns is in quotations? Do you not appreciate my parellel sentence construction? Are you mad that I did not choose to use cater to you through a presupposed vernacular?

Because browns seems a much more questionable demographic. The definition and demographics of blacks are quite commonly accepted, but browns? Mexican descent? Central American and South American descent? It seems far more dubious as is the fact that you randomly threw out statistics without a source. Which would be nice.

Also all you're saying is another unsupported statement that implicates the entire progressive movement worlwide as some huge conspiracy. Also it's very interesting that in a thread denying the existence of racism you start blindly generalising about race as well as implying that only the whites are educated and informed. Rather than your crazy and unsupported( I'm pretty sure that Obama received the majority of white votes as well) "Those damn non-white people are racist" consider actual logic and cause and effect.

Blacks are statistically poorer.
Statistically the poor tend to vote Democrat.
Therefore statistically blacks will lean more towards Democrats.

Wow! It's like almost the huge conspiracies in your head are delusional and your unsupported statements which you seem to throw out on an hourly basis are usually wildly off the mark and not well thought out at all.

Iliad wrote:Also all you're saying is another unsupported statement that implicates the entire progressive movement worlwide as some huge conspiracy. Also it's very interesting that in a thread denying the existence of racism you start blindly generalising about race as well as implying that only the whites are educated and informed. Rather than your crazy and unsupported( I'm pretty sure that Obama received the majority of white votes as well) "Those damn non-white people are racist" consider actual logic and cause and effect.

Blacks are statistically poorer.
Statistically the poor tend to vote Democrat.
Therefore statistically blacks will lean more towards Democrats.

Wow! It's like almost the huge conspiracies in your head are delusional and your unsupported statements which you seem to throw out on an hourly basis are usually wildly off the mark and not well thought out at all.

- Yes browns would include all the groups that you mentioned.

- I should have put a source but we all know the numbers more/less - Easy to validate

- I'm not claiming a conspiracy. I'm claiming flat out systemically manufactured ignorance. -- Know reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:You ever stop and think that its the Dem supporters that see things through race colored glasses?
95 percent of blacks voted for Obama
66 percent of browns voted for Obama
41 percent of whites voted for Obama
It sounds like the whites are the ones bothering to at least be f'ing informed rather than focust on the superficiality of winning 'historical elections.'

Your presumption that being "f'ing informed" relates directly to not voting for Obama shows that you're the one viewing things from some sort of bias.

We all have our biases or political inclinations. But the bias I specifically spoke of was a racial bias that is obvious to anybody with 1/10th of a brain.

Oh, that's why you find it obvious. Ok.