• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

The Man of Steal

Started by Zircon, September 19, 2012, 02:33:00 PM

Ben Shockley

Quote from: MV on September 27, 2012, 04:36:49 PM
i can't have an honest, open discussion of ideas with someone who predictably and consistently injects the president's racial extraction into the discussion as debate leverage.  by doing this, you are causing more harm to the future prospects of black presidential candidates than any klansman could.  it strikes me as a weak tactic which is why i won't bother addressing it.
I was joking.  Why so touchy?
Try this: subtract my mechanisms of unappreciated humor (the ellipses, the "fooled ya"s) and just read it straight as "the Democrat."   That was the point too.   Address it that way.
Ya see, after all, I was only mockingly making reference to anti-Obama types who predictably and consistently [use naked proxy terms to] inject the president's racial extraction into [their apocalyptic political rhetoric to amp-up the primal fear for political] leverage.

Quote from: MV on September 27, 2012, 04:36:49 PM
...you are causing more harm to the future prospects of black presidential candidates than any klansman could.
So, because of my attempt to mock electoral racism, someday someone who otherwise was ready to vote for a particular Black candidate is going to say "Wait a minute!  I remember some mo-fo online calling himself Shockley who was mocking people who would never vote for a Black guy.   But since I have decided to vote for a Black guy, I'm personally offended by Shockley's mockery.   So now, just to fuck with Shockley for mocking people who aren't like me --and despite the fact that he'll never know this-- I'm going to forget all my own political analyses and opinions and stay home today and not vote for Candidate X."
Really?

Juan

When Bush I was president, there was no Internet as we know it.  It was kind of hard to get the word out, but I certainly stood in front of the Post Office on April 15th and handed out "Taxation is Theft" brochures from The Society for Individual Liberty.

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 05:01:15 PM
I was joking.  Why so touchy?


your previous posts would suggest otherwise.

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 05:01:15 PM
I was joking...

Sure didn't seem like it.  It was in nearly every post there for awhile.  The 'it was a joke' excuse sure seems popular when people get nailed, it's actually refreshing when people just own it instead.  But ok, you were just joking, no prob. 

Unfortunately there are way too many people using this very tactic to shut down debate.


Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 05:01:15 PM
... Ya see, after all, I was only mockingly making reference to anti-Obama types who predictably and consistently [use naked proxy terms to] inject the president's racial extraction into [their apocalyptic political rhetoric to amp-up the primal fear for political] leverage...

I'm not sure anyone here was doing that.  Why not just point it out when you think you see it.


Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 05:01:15 PM
... So, because of my attempt to mock electoral racism, someday someone who otherwise was ready to vote for a particular Black candidate is going to say "Wait a minute!  I remember some mo-fo online calling himself Shockley who was mocking people who would never vote for a Black guy.   But since I have decided to vote for a Black guy, I'm personally offended by Shockley's mockery.   So now, just to fuck with Shockley for mocking people who aren't like me --and despite the fact that he'll never know this-- I'm going to forget all my own political analyses and opinions and stay home today and not vote for Candidate X."
Really?


It goes something more like:  "The Democrats can't handle having anyone other than a straight white male in the White House.  If anyone else is elected, any criticism or disagreement will be treated as racist, sexist, or homophobic (whichever applies).  Our government of self rule depends on our ability to critize and disagree with elected officials and if we can't do that without being personally attacked in the most vile terms, then maybe those Liberals and therefore the Nation is not ready to elect such a person".  And that would really sad.

Hope that helps.



Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
Maybe some of you can explain something to me:

If you believe that Obama is committed to the destruction of this nation, and if you assume that he is aware that there is a highly-mobilized segment of the populace determined to stop him, why do you suppose he would wait until his second and last term in office to put the plan seriously in motion?   Doing that exposes him to a second chance of "the sheeple" waking up and electorally stopping him.

If you assume that part of Obama's agenda is the ending of constitutional limitations on presidential power and the installation of himself as absolute dictator of the U.S. --which, as best I can tell, is what you folks are expecting-- what is he waiting for?   If he's going to declare himself dictator after the election, why do you suppose that he doesn't just skip a step and do the self-coronation now?   Why didn't he do it in January 2009?

Overall, what I'm asking is: if you assume that Obama is committed to destroying, and is single-handedly able to destroy, constitutional government in the U.S., why do you also assume that he is fooling around with what is ultimately a bunch of wasted time called "electoral politics?"

I'm sure he would love to.  One can't simply just 'decide' to do it.  The situation and timing have to be right.  What, you thought everyone that wanted to be a dictator just walked in and announced they were taking over?  And it worked?

One of the good things - or should I say fortunate things - about Obama is that he is more weak than ruthless.  If a situation presented itself, a more ruthless person might try to take advantage, where a more cautious Obama might wait for a more favorable situation.


Do you think Gandhi's method would have gotten rid of anyone in any period, or was it because it was the British, at the right time, and having the right situation?  Why didn't the Tian-a-men Square protestors prevail instead of being run over by tanks?



Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
EXTRA CREDIT
If your answer to the question of "what's he waiting for?" primarily has to do with "laying the groundwork," please detail for me exactly what groundwork has been laid.   In particular, detail what you perceive as infrastructure and mechanisms of material support that are likely to serve any "people's revolutionary army," "Obama brigades," or other potential/purported organs of armed coercive power that would be directly loyal to Obama and that would be necessary to facilitate and defend his takeover against resistance from military organs loyal to the existing Constitution.

I didn't answer 'groundwork', although that would be part of any plan to create a favorable situation which could be used.  How about bankrupting the country?  How about his comments and actions that create economic uncertainty - which keep businesses from expanding, investing, buying inventory, hiring people?  How about emboldening more terrorism by catering to the Islamists and standing by when they steal the 'Arab Spring' revolutions?  How about projecting weakness with the hope Russia or China miscalculate and we are manuevered into some sort of confrontation?  How about loading up the Supreme Court so incredibly destructive and un-Constitutional items like ObamaCare make it through?  Infiltrate the government and military with Jihadis?  With hard Leftists?  More racial division?  Class warfare? 

Sounds like 'groundwork' to me.

Obama brigades?  I recently pointed out who they would be, at least in past, and you even responded to that post.  For starters, they include Acorn, SEIU, Occupy, TSA.  Should I potentially add homegrown inner city gangs and the Latino gangs? - they seem to be happy to work with anyone for cash.  Pretty sure terorist cells could be either set up or existing ones utilized if one has the right connections.  How many 'demonstrators' could be rallied to fill the streets?  I can picture military forces being confused and either siding with the sitting President or being disarmed and neutralized in their barracks, the rest stranded overseas - surprise would be on the side of the planners.  Soros could fund much of this early on. Do we know where all the cash the Fed is printing is going?

And don't discount the media that sides with Obama now, and turning off other outlets like radio and the internet.  Same as any other coup.

Don't misunderstand - I don't expect this to play out, I'm just answering your question about how it could be done.

Ben Shockley

Pardon me for skipping the quotations here, but I can move faster this way.
First: P*B, thanks for trying to tackle the essay question.   I'll get around to that another time.   You mystify me.

Next:  MV and P*B, I'm sorry if you were confused, but also a little puzzled as to how you could be, regarding my sarcasm about substituting "the Democrat" to describe Obama, in places meant to evoke the way some people might think of him in --yes-- racial terms.   I'm not sure what y'all thought I was saying, if there actually was any ambiguity.
MV, you picked a mighty disappointing place to give up on advocating for your side.   I'd still be glad to see you tackle that part where I described what makes a lot of us "more than a tad suspicious."  For that matter, I hope you realize that a lot of us ARE earnestly suspicious about why all hell broke loose in terms of political rancor from people that --apparently-- hadn't even noticed the problems you mentioned, or much of anything else, UNTIL this particular President got elected.

I use sarcasm a lot in here, in hopes of pointing out the ugliness and stupidity I see in life in general, and particularly in American politics --some of which is naturally carried into this forum by various people.   Another thing I try to do is create caricatures --usually very ugly ones-- to express my thoughts and feelings about narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted people.   I try to be creative about it; sometimes it works better than others.  Other times I'm just too flustered to be creative and I just "go negative" myself.

Like I've said to MV twice when he seemed a little confused by my stuff (and to make it simpler here): if the shoe don't fit, don't force it onto your foot.   I commented the other day to someone who thought one of my posts was "condescending:" I never fail to be amazed by how people can get offended by deliberately over-the-top portrayals that --it would seem to me-- no one in his right mind would want to link himself to.
In that case, I was musing on some unnamed blogger referred to earlier in the thread, who apparently had been urging-on another war for the U.S., against Iran (I think that was the scenario: "more war" in any case).   I mused as to whether this blogger was the kind of "Christian" end-timer who thinks that piling up the dead bodies in the Middle East will somehow hasten "the Rapture" which, he is confident, will mean him getting a sweet one-way ticket with Jesus to a coloring-book paradise.
Okay: assuming that "condescension" is a form of "unfairness" --which is what I assume that poster meant-- then who is that portrayal "condescending" ("unfair") toward?   Religious fanatics in general?   Self-styled "Christians" who've never actually read the Bible beyond Numbers?   "Rapture" believers who specifically think other people's death will speed things up?
The incredible thing to me was that the poster seemed to be offended by it, like he really felt that I was being mean to him --like he identified with some part of all that.    If someone thinks my portrayal is of something "bad," then why identify with it?    If you think what you are is "bad,"  change!   If you think what you are is good, then why be offended when you perceive someone to be describing you?   Be proud, or don't be!

The general rule of thumb when reading my socio-political posts --I mean, unless they are clearly straight exposition or description; something obvious-- is to assume "resigned sarcasm" as my intended mood, and with aspirations toward humor.   My descriptions of "types" --particularly in regard to American politics-- are usually meant to paint a picture of what I think you should not want to be.   If you watch carefully, I think you'll see that, when I depict something "politically negative," I try to make it so stark that --I hope-- no one will see or want to see themselves in it.   Those who might catch the faintest glimpse of themselves: I hope they might think "wow!  I know I'm not like the rest of what he's saying!"   I hope they aren't.   The truth is, some folks in here worry me.   They are beyond my satires.   Like the very nature of this thread.

So if anyone thinks they see themself in my portrayal of something --for example, "a right-winger"-- and if they think that the terms I use to describe "a right-winger" are bad, whose fault is that?   I never mentioned you by name, Mr. or Ms. Forum Member; quite likely never had you in mind or even been aware of you.   I only described something ugly.  YOU saw YOURself in it.   I didn't make you be or do whatever it is about you that you think matches the description.   If you think that something about you is ugly, change it.   Don't get mad at me for walking past you with a blemish-magnifying mirror.   If it's the first mirror you've ever seen: don't be scared-- that creature is just you; get a mirror of your own and learn to pretty yourself up a little.

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 09:59:40 PM
MV, you picked a mighty disappointing place to give up on advocating for your side.


i'd like to know what you think my side is.

Sardondi

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 09:59:40 PM...So if anyone thinks they see themself in my portrayal of something --for example, "a right-winger"-- and if they think that the terms I use to describe "a right-winger" are bad, whose fault is that?   I never mentioned you by name, Mr. or Ms. Forum Member; quite likely never had you in mind or even been aware of you.   I only described something ugly.  YOU saw YOURself in it.   I didn't make you be or do whatever it is about you that you think matches the description.   If you think that something about you is ugly, change it.   Don't get mad at me for walking past you with a blemish-magnifying mirror.   If it's the first mirror you've ever seen: don't be scared-- that creature is just you; get a mirror of your own and learn to pretty yourself up a little.

You really, truly, no shit don't see the applicability of these thoughts to yourself at all?

Ruteger

Don't forget the November 2010 mid-term elections. The Dems got their collective rears beat - and badly. Nothing has changed since then. The economy is worse - EVERYTHING is worse. The MSM will LIE to keep Hussein in power, and try to depress you with false polling numbers.  Just make sure you vote. And, you should convince at least one other person to vote R/R. That is all we can do - except PRAY for our nation.


Romney may not be the best, but Hussein is MUCH worse.

Quote from: MV on September 27, 2012, 11:08:35 AM
perhaps obama didn't specifically articulate some of these ideas in a deliberate way and in the context of how you've chosen to frame this discussion, but:

1)... 10)...



this list could probably go on and on, but i don't have a lot of time these days.  my point is... any feigned shock at what obama has done as president seems to be exactly that: feigned.  don't tell me nobody saw this coming.  anyone who DIDN'T is either a: an idiot or b: was swept up in all of the hollow obama-mania or c: all of the above.  anyone who experienced even the most minute of exposure to mainstream media in 2008 would have been clued into the world view obama represents...

The elections are decided by people that aren't interested, don't care, don't pay attention - some combination of lousy schools and poor curriculum, and everyone telling these uninformed people that they should vote anyway. 

Sure, all that was out there for people to see - some didn't believe it or didn't want to believe it, others just thought it was the usual mudslinging and ignored it, still others only get their news from the Phony Media and didn't hear it that much at all.

Obama is pretty low key, unflappable, he speaks well (make that:  reads aloud well) - people like that in a President.  It was 'cool' to vote for him - everyone else was going to, and the media said so.  So yes, they were uninformed, maybe willingly so (as opposed to idiots), and swept up in Obama-mania.

The Ds shrewdly set up ObamaCare so the unpleasant parts don't kick in until 2013, so that's not energizing anyone now.

We'll have to see if anything is different this time around.


MV/Liberace!

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 28, 2012, 08:02:43 PM
Obama is pretty low key, unflappable, he speaks well (make that:  reads aloud well)


haha, i was going to correct you, but you beat me to it.

Ruteger


The sadist in me wants to see the American People suffer - and greatly - should they vote Hussein another 4 years. Unfortunately, I would have to suffer the consequences along with the Hussein voters.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 28, 2012, 08:02:43 PM

The elections are decided by people that aren't interested, don't care, don't pay attention - some combination of lousy schools and poor curriculum, and everyone telling these uninformed people that they should vote anyway. 

Sure, all that was out there for people to see - some didn't believe it or didn't want to believe it, others just thought it was the usual mudslinging and ignored it, still others only get their news from the Phony Media and didn't hear it that much at all.

Obama is pretty low key, unflappable, he speaks well (make that:  reads aloud well) - people like that in a President.  It was 'cool' to vote for him - everyone else was going to, and the media said so.  So yes, they were uninformed, maybe willingly so (as opposed to idiots), and swept up in Obama-mania.

The Ds shrewdly set up ObamaCare so the unpleasant parts don't kick in until 2013, so that's not energizing anyone now.

We'll have to see if anything is different this time around.

Quote from: Ruteger on September 29, 2012, 11:55:37 AM
The sadist in me wants to see the American People suffer - and greatly - should they vote Hussein another 4 years. Unfortunately, I would have to suffer the consequences along with the Hussein voters.

It's too bad that the Obama supporters won't be the only ones suffering under his economy.  It's too bad they won't be alone sufering the consequences of a bankrupt America and a ruined currency.  It's too bad they won't be the only ones with reduced living standards living in a country run like a weak sickly European Parlimentary Socialist country. 

It's not a lot different from the Democrat-appointed judges and Limosine Liberals being soft on crime while living in their gates communities, and inner city crime victims voting for more of it.

I'm never going to understand why poor people in the inner city vote for essentially more crime, less opportunity, and more poverty.  I don't get some of the rest of us doing it either.


Ben Shockley

Trying to really lay it to me, my pal Sardondi zeroed in on this part of my last post in here:

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 09:59:40 PM
...So if anyone thinks they see themself in my portrayal of something --for example, "a right-winger"-- and if they think that the terms I use to describe "a right-winger" are bad, whose fault is that?   I never mentioned you by name, Mr. or Ms. Forum Member; quite likely never had you in mind or even been aware of you.   I only described something ugly.  YOU saw YOURself in it.   I didn't make you be or do whatever it is about you that you think matches the description.   If you think that something about you is ugly, change it.   Don't get mad at me for walking past you with a blemish-magnifying mirror.   If it's the first mirror you've ever seen: don't be scared-- that creature is just you; get a mirror of your own and learn to pretty yourself up a little.

Then went for the coup de grâce with:

Quote from: Sardondi on September 28, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
You really, truly, no shit don't see the applicability of these thoughts to yourself at all?

No, Big Man, I "really, truly, no shit" don't.   Explain it for me.    Demonstrate for me how I am getting scared and offended by attempts at "consciousness-raising" by right-wingers, and make sure to include examples of said "attempts at consciousness-raising" on the part of right-wingers in here done for my benefit, with special attention to occasions where I have shown offense at right-wingers demonstrating and rebuking me for aspects of my political behavior that have been illegal in the U.S. for the last 50 years.


As you do so, Mr. Prosecutor, be aware that the only reason that I didn't take about 5 extra minutes to embarrass you the other day by demonstrating your blatantly appending your own political argumentation to the "naive testimony" of the "secret service guy(s)" in "the matter of Carter v. Reagan" was because I figured that, if I did it in that thread where it really belonged, where everyone was watching and swallowing your toxin, it would be called "gratuitous and out-of-place politics" -- you know: as usual -- and I or the thread would get shut down.

And I appended this  to make you "up your game."

Don't write for the spectators, Mr. Prosecutor.   Write for me.   Prove your case.

Quote from: Ruteger on September 23, 2012, 11:12:51 AM
Zircon - great post. Hussein is a Manchurian Candidate. Should the American People vote him another 4 years, let their suffering be worthy of a song! Unfortunately, sane-minded individuals like yourself and myself will have to bear the brunt also.
You both also need to bear the brunt of voting asshats like Reagan and W into office. TWICE!  :o

Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 03, 2012, 10:12:06 PM
You both also need to bear the brunt of voting asshats like Reagan and W into office. TWICE!  :o

Well, let's see - the opponents those years were a complete failure named Jimmy Carter, 'I'm gonna raise your taxes' and return to Carter policies Mondale, a wooden Al Gore during a period of Clinton-fatigue (and rightly so), and the traitor Kerry (the person illegally advising the North Vietnamese to not negotiate in Paris, that they would 'win' by just holding out a little longer). 


That's the modern Democrat Party right there.  No thanks.

MV/Liberace!

just wanted to be sure everyone knows... john kerry served in vietnam.

Eddie Coyle

Quote from: MV on October 04, 2012, 12:25:59 PM
just wanted to be sure everyone knows... john kerry served in vietnam.
Killed a pajama wearing slope, too.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM

Well, let's see - the opponents those years were a complete failure named Jimmy Carter, 'I'm gonna raise your taxes' and return to Carter policies Mondale, a wooden Al Gore during a period of Clinton-fatigue (and rightly so), and the traitor Kerry (the person illegally advising the North Vietnamese to not negotiate in Paris, that they would 'win' by just holding out a little longer). 


That's the modern Democrat Party right there.  No thanks.


Nope. Reagan was the ultimate coward who strayed away from his leftist roots (Screen Actors Guil
d) and was led by greed and GE. It's also sad that the Man has the blood of tens of thousands of AIDS victims in His hands by secretly hiding the CDC reports from the public due to his "Christian" beliefs. John Kerry served proudly, led troops into battle. Anyone standing up to the Republican war machine and stopping that absolutly useless and laughable war is a true American.

Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 04, 2012, 04:01:28 PM

Nope. Reagan was the ultimate coward who strayed away from his leftist roots (Screen Actors Guil
d) and was led by greed and GE. It's also sad that the Man has the blood of tens of thousands of AIDS victims in His hands by secretly hiding the CDC reports from the public due to his "Christian" beliefs. John Kerry served proudly, led troops into battle. Anyone standing up to the Republican war machine and stopping that absolutly useless and laughable war is a true American.

Umm, as he stated many times, the Democrat Party left him.  Do you really think many of the Democrats back in those days would be be in the Democrat Party today?

I'm going to say the people infecting each other with AIDs and not being responsibel for thier own health are the ones responsible for all the deaths - you know, the people that refused to allow testing, wouldn't even wear condoms or be honest with each other.  Insisted on keeping the bath houses open.  Pretty sure RR never infected anyone.

And that was a Democrat war machine - ill-conceived by JFK (remember him - the guy that had the South Vietnamese president assassinated?) and very badly carried out by LBJ.  It took a Republican to get us out.  And about John Kerry - not only did he help prolong it by advising the NV and VC to not negotiate (recall the months in Paris haggling over the shape of the negotiating table), but he smeared US soldiers and lied about them 'cutting off ears' and all the rest of what he said.  Served proudly?  Not what the people that knew him there said - which is pretty weird, who else ever speaks poorly of their fellow soldiers?  Nope, JK is a real piece of shit.


analog kid

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on October 04, 2012, 01:21:10 PM
        Killed a pajama wearing slope, too.

Worthy fucking adversary.




When GE gives anything and everything to a sellout, yes(which actually did happen the Poor Ronny)



Most Republicans are repressed closeted homosexuals and have come out in the last two years.
Does your own rationalization extend to Men Women and Children murdered during non sexual situations such as medical and the like, by the suppression of AIDS related information the the public too?


Nope. Wrong again there. JFK was responsible for deploying 13,000 troops to secure the south Vietnamese Government and soon took a lesson learned in history re guarding Frances failure in SEA.
By the time Nixon found about about this little tatic of JFK, know as logic He was retired by that same Man- tricky dick (head). Once JFK was out of the way, Nixon secretly arranged mass carpet bombings over Cambodia. Troop escalations took this country to the brink of civil war as a result (ironically after LBJ left) And then there is the little incident that Tricky Dick participated in"Watergate" which was the perfect disgraceful exit  Nixon needed to end His war only to be cleaned up by Carter.
The public admittance of US atrocities in SEA was hard the hear for some deaf ears. You mean you actually believed the HIGGINS BOAT ad? 
Nope, Nixon was the immortal piece of shit and JFK the hero.

Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 04, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
... When GE gives anything and everything to a sellout, yes(which actually did happen the Poor Ronny)..

Interesting to note that current GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is one of Obama's private sector economic advisors, probably the most influential one.  And that GE hasn't paid any Federal income taxes in years. 

I think you have a point about sellouts and corruption.


Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 04, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
... You mean you actually believed the HIGGINS BOAT ad? 

Nope, Nixon was the immortal piece of shit and JFK the hero.

His Swift Boat unit's report sure seemed to ring true when looked at with everything else we know about 'war hero' John Kerry.  Remember when Kerry was going to release his war records and prove them all wrong? - still waiting 8 years later..

By the way, I said JK (John Kerry) was a peice of shit, not JFK.




Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 04, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
...  Most Republicans are repressed closeted homosexuals and have come out in the last two years ...

Here in the SF Bay Area the latest from the 'gay' community is a demand they be allowed to go anywhere and do anything in the nude.  Never mind leaving skid marks everywhere.  Even the SF Board of Supervisors is grossed out.  It's always something around here, where the antics of this group is a running local story.  Yeah, these militant gays are the persecuted innocent victims of those evil R's (who are really gay themselves, if I read you right).  Sheesh. 

By the way, would we be talking about Carter being 'responsible' for AIDs had he won that election and been President from 1981-1984?  Of course not.   They would have found a Republican governor or some other official to blame.

Juan

Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 04, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
Most Republicans are repressed closeted homosexuals and have come out in the last two years.


hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahah

Quote from: Paper*Boy on October 05, 2012, 02:59:22 AM

Interesting to note that current GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is one of Obama's private sector economic advisors, probably the most influential one.  And that GE hasn't paid any Federal income taxes in years. 

I think you have a point about sellouts and corruption.
 
Thanks to Reagan's deregulation, GE has not paid taxes in years. I think you have a point there too.
 
His Swift Boat unit's report sure seemed to ring true when looked at with everything else we know about 'war hero' John Kerry.  Remember when Kerry was going to release his war records and prove them all wrong? - still waiting 8 years later.
Why would JK need too? He slaughtered Shrub in the debates and had the support of millions of hard working, UNION war veterans who thought it insulting to have to prove ones heroic actions taken in the heat of battle. Republicans typically choose not to fight their own wars once they make them worse.   VIETNAM, IRAQ are two that come to mind. 

By the way, I said JK (John Kerry) was a peice of shit, not JFK.
"cigarette? "Yes I know"



 
Here in the SF Bay Area the latest from the 'gay' community is a demand they be allowed to go anywhere and do anything in the nude.  Never mind leaving skid marks everywhere.  Even the SF Board of Supervisors is grossed out.  It's always something around here, where the antics of this group is a running local story.  Yeah, these militant gays are the persecuted innocent victims of those evil R's (who are really gay themselves, if I read you right).  Sheesh. 

  Well that's overstating th obvious as Republicans leave skid marks in everything they touch.....
By the way, would we be talking about Carter being 'responsible' for AIDs had he won that election and been President from 1981-1984?  Of course not.   They would have found a Republican governor or some other official to blame.
If Carter was elected the administration would not have allowed AIDS information the be suppressed.


Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 04, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
... Most Republicans are repressed closeted homosexuals and have come out in the last two years...


Quote from: UFO Fill on October 05, 2012, 05:38:13 AM
hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahah


I know right.  This sort of thing is what a person gets if they talk to a Lib long enough -  usually sooner than later.

Always the ones claiming to be peaceful, welcoming, non-judgemental, enlightened, 'diverse', and everyone else is 'angry', racist, sexist, homophobic.  Then they'll hit you up with a gay smear.  Too funny and so predictable.


We will NOT tolerate intolerance. I wish you well in the upcoming elections.

The General

Quote from: Thomas Firepickle on October 05, 2012, 08:55:22 AM
We will NOT tolerate intolerance. I wish you well in the upcoming elections.
Well, heil fuckin Hitler.

Quote from: The General on October 05, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Well, heil fuckin Hitler.
If I were you I'd be very careful with those words, Patriot Act um I mean General.
I'm sorry that your fear of authority figures has resulted in angry attacks against those that will NOT tolerate intolerance of others.  Good luck with the elections and I hope you lose all political power in the coming year.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod