or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democratic Dirty Tricks - Massachusetts Edition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Democratic Dirty Tricks - Massachusetts Edition - Page 5

post #161 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Are you claiming a male homosexual cannot engage in this act?

Well, now is as good a time as any to invoke Godwin's...

Stop eating food, you Nazi!

Are you claiming Nazis cannot engage in eating?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #162 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Are you claiming a male homosexual cannot engage in this act?

No. I am asserting the fact that 'teabagging' is neither an exclusively homosexual nor a heterosexual practice. It is something that requires testicles and a face.

It is a fact that you said that Keith Olberman was homophobic for using this term.

It is a fact that this term is not a homophobic term.

It is a fact that you have made an error, and your continued failure to acknowledge it is humiliating for you.
post #163 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No. I am asserting the fact that 'teabagging' is neither an exclusively homosexual nor a heterosexual practice. It is something that requires testicles and a face.

It is a fact that you said that Keith Olberman was homophobic for using this term.

It is a fact that this term is not a homophobic term.

It is a fact that you have made an error, and your continued failure to acknowledge it is humiliating for you.

Got it so you are still playing with words again. I have the post where you said forget exclusively, and here you are pressing the case with it again. That is patently dishonest.

Are anal sex or cunnilingus "exclusively" homosexual practices? Since homosexuality isn't about WHAT one does, but rather, WHO one does it with, trying to argue about WHAT one does is again, just purely dishonest.

Sad and desperate on your part. Did you do as I asked and go reference the John Waters clip from the movie Pecker that he used to try to introduce the term or just claim correctness via spamming repetition again?

Can you name for me an action that is EXCLUSIVELY homosexual? Can you name for me an act that two homosexual males can engage that a heterosexual couple cannot and thus it becomes exclusive?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #164 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Got it so you are still playing with words again. I have the post where you said forget exclusively, and here you are pressing the case with it again. That is patently dishonest.

Are anal sex or cunnilingus "exclusively" homosexual practices? Since homosexuality isn't about WHAT one does, but rather, WHO one does it with, trying to argue about WHAT one does is again, just purely dishonest.

Sad and desperate on your part. Did you do as I asked and go reference the John Waters clip from the movie Pecker that he used to try to introduce the term or just claim correctness via spamming repetition again?

Can you name for me an action that is EXCLUSIVELY homosexual? Can you name for me an act that two homosexual males can engage that a heterosexual couple cannot and thus it becomes exclusive?

Your entire post is basically irrelevant. I will explain again. Even more simply this time. Again, I will use bold, but this time I will use more capital letters.

You said that Keith Olberman was HOMOPHOBIC for using the term 'TEABAGGING'.

This was INCORRECT.

It was INCORRECT because 'TEABAGGING' is something that both homosexual and heterosexual couples do.

It was INCORRECT because 'TEABAGGING' IS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL TERM.

So you were INCORRECT. You MADE A MISTAKE.

'TEABAGGING' IS NOT A HOMOPHOBIC TERM. IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE BOTH GAY AND STRAIGHT PEOPLE ENJOY THE ACT OF TEABAGGING.

IF BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY PEOPLE ENGAGE IN TEABAGGING THEN THE TERM 'TEABAGGING' IS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL TERM.

AND YOU CAN USE THE TERM 'TEABAGGING' WITHOUT BEING HOMOPHOBIC.

SO YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.

A MISTAKE.

AND YOUR CONTINUED REFUSAL TO ADMIT IT IS HUMILIATING FOR YOU.
post #165 of 186
Thread Starter 
Got it spamming versus addressing, you are simply trolling. You are now on ignore.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #166 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Got it spamming versus addressing, you are simply trolling. You are now on ignore.

This has perhaps been the most embarrassing exchange I have ever been engaged in on this forum.

Trumptman said that Keith Olberman was homophobic for using the term 'teabagger' about Scott Brown.

I showed him that 'teabagging' was not a homophobic term.

Because both straight and gay couples do it, and the word does not have homosexual connotations.

So he was in error. Keith Olberman was not being homophobic when he used it.

Such an extraordinarily simple thing. He made a mistake. It would have taken nothing to admit it.

I think it would behove all other members to remember that if you are arguing in good faith, and it can be demonstrated that you are in error, and you admit it, there are those who believe that this is a weakness.

And those people will never, ever admit that they are in error. They do not argue in good faith. Nothing you write will ever, EVER make any difference.

That is what I believe.
post #167 of 186
Thread Starter 
No teabagging and from 1998.

Thank goodness only insane people would associate a bunch of male dances in a gay strip club with homosexuality in any fashion.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #168 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No teabagging and from 1998.

Thank goodness only insane people would associate a bunch of male dances in a gay strip club with homosexuality in any fashion.

Let me get this straight.

Are you now claiming that teabagging is an exclusively homosexual practice?
post #169 of 186
Here is the link to urbandictionary, a good barometer of what the popular meanings of slang words are:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=teabagger

Note that in the most popular definition, that receiving the most positive reviews and having almost a 7 to 1 positive to negative ratio with over 6000 votes, the first definition involving testicles says the following:

Quote:
2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging"

Note it specifically refers to this as a heterosexual practice. Anything that could even be construed as homosexual doesn't appear until the 5th definition.

If looking at just the word "teabag", you'll see this as the most popular result
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabag


To dunk ones scrotum into the open mouth of another person

Note that again no gender is specified. However, in the example sentence, take a look at the gender of the testicle recipient:

Quote:
"Man, Brenda was all passe dout with her mouth open and Billy teabagged her"

I don't think Brenda is a guy. Clearly we've seen that teabagging is at the very least not a primarily homosexual practice. Here's the second definition of teabag:

Quote:
buy teabag mugs, tshirts and magnets
1) To insert one's nuts into the mouth of another (of either gender), usually while they are sleeping. Can either be a situation of laughter or of excruciating pain, depending on whether the victim is a biter.

Note no gender prefrence and no sexual meaning either. It is a silly prank and nothing more.

You have to scroll down a bit before you find a homosexual meaning for teabagging. Just remember you're scrolling past all the primary heterosexual and non-sexual-tomfoolery definitions first.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #170 of 186
Back to the beginning:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trumptman

The irony of someone calling someone else a homophobe while using the term "teabagger" is just too sad to be funny. It is akin to claiming someone is racist while calling them a "n*gg*r lover." The left is literally so clueless that it is just pathetically sad.

Here's the original comment by Olbermann:

Quote:
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Lost in the angst about Obama and Coakley is the little-recognized real headline of this vote. You have heard Scott Brown speculating, talking out of his bare bottom, about whether or not the President of the United States was born out of wedlock. You have heard Scott Brown respond to the shout from a supporter that they should stick a curling iron into Ms. Coakley's rectum with the answer, "We can do this."

You may not have heard Scott Brown support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or describing two women having a child as being quote, "Just not normal." You may not have heard Scott Brown associating himself with the Tea Party movement, perhaps the saddest collection of people who don't want to admit why they really hate since the racists of the South in the sixties insisted they were really just concerned about states' rights. You may not of heard Scott Brown voting against paid leaves of absence for Massachusetts Red Cross workers who had gone to New York to help after 9/11.

In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.

You claim that it was ironic to call Brown homophobic and a teabagging supporter in the same sentence. Who used the term teabag with regard to the Tea Party first? Could it be none other than members of that very own movement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Par...22_controversy

Quote:
In a 14 March report on Fox News, Griff Jenkins said, "ReTeaParty.com has a headline, 'Teabag the fools in DC on Tax Day.' They want you ... to take a tea bag, put it an envelope, and mail it to the White House."

If the organizers told their supporters to "Teabag the fools in DC", then the act of doing so would be "teabagging." Brown was a part of that movement. He was a "teabagging supporter" by that movement's very own terminology.

In summary:

1. Teabagging - Not primarily homosexual; primarily heterosexual and non-sexual-pranking
2. Teabagging - The movement's very own terminology

Trumpt, a little bit of reasonableness in admitting you jumped the gun on that statement of yours would go a long way to helping your credibility.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #171 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Here is the link to urbandictionary, a good barometer of what the popular meanings of slang words are:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=teabagger

Note that in the most popular definition, that receiving the most positive reviews and having almost a 7 to 1 positive to negative ratio with over 6000 votes, the first definition involving testicles says the following:



Note it specifically refers to this as a heterosexual practice. Anything that could even be construed as homosexual doesn't appear until the 5th definition.

If looking at just the word "teabag", you'll see this as the most popular result

Note that again no gender is specified. However, in the example sentence, take a look at the gender of the testicle recipient:



I don't think Brenda is a guy. Clearly we've seen that teabagging is at the very least not a primarily homosexual practice. Here's the second definition of teabag:


Note no gender prefrence and no sexual meaning either. It is a silly prank and nothing more.

You have to scroll down a bit before you find a homosexual meaning for teabagging. Just remember you're scrolling past all the primary heterosexual and non-sexual-tomfoolery definitions first.

I provide the ten year old clip and you provide definitions that can be voted on by anyone. You do understand how self-selected polls aren't at all accurate. Let me post my self-selected poll from Free Republic on what the definition of teabagger is and also on how Obama is doing. It much be right when self-selected instead of random.

If I posted my definition and then spammed a couple conservatives forums to go vote on it, would it be your tried and true go to definition two days from now?

I don't think so. But really, you've self enacted Godwin's law just to show the lack of discussion you are interested in having.

Watch lefties lose a couple elections and they just go insane. Olbermann has APOLOGIZED. Not to who he needs to of course because he will apologize to Stewart for being over the top, but not to Michelle Malken for calling her a bag of meat nor Scott Brown for tossing every -ist and -ism imaginable at him in hopes of jarring something lose in his winning election bid.

This thread reads like a nice microcosm of the national scene. The Republicans are out there winning elections and the Democrats are wondering why everyone is a Nazi, Redneck, Teabagger for not being as "smart" and "right" as they are in their supposed thinking.

Go yell at some more people and call them Nazis. Forgo deeping thinking for "screwjobs" and "greedy fuckwads."

With such reasoning, he who throws the biggest temper tantrum wins.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #172 of 186
Because this is the most fucking retarded discussion ever on Political Outsider. I was self enacting Godwin's as a joke. Get a grip mister serious pants. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch, blame the teabagging movement for using the term in the first place.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #173 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Because this is the most fucking retarded discussion ever on Political Outsider. I was self enacting Godwin's as a joke. Get a grip mister serious pants. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch, blame the teabagging movement for using the term in the first place.

They didn't use it. They used tea party. The wonderful "newscasters" like Anderson Cooper, and Rachel Maddow decided to use it as a term of ridicule. It was right there in the Wikipedia link with only FIVE citation points.

But wait BR, can you prove I EXCLUSIVELY get my panties in a bunch?

Quote:
You claim that it was ironic to call Brown homophobic and a teabagging supporter in the same sentence. Who used the term teabag with regard to the Tea Party first? Could it be none other than members of that very own movement?

Actually by your very own link, no it couldn't.

Koppelman speculates that Jenkins was more likely than ReTeaParty.com to have been aware of the double entendre; he summarizes, "for the most part conservatives haven't actually been using the words in such a way as to lend themselves to double entendre. With one or two exceptions, almost all of it has actually been coming from the left."[

Are you claiming the exception proves the rule? If I find one or two members of a lefist organization who don't understand a double entendre or who have questionable grammar, can I forgo courtesy and also if I am a journalist, any ethical standards and just call people names for as long as I want?

Quote:
Trumpt, a little bit of reasonableness in admitting you jumped the gun on that statement of yours would go a long way to helping your credibility.

I provided a link to the ten year old John Waters movie that attempted to mainstream the term. I'm not just repeating nonsense or just making crap up. Within MJ's link I noted the journalists who used it and it had five citations. Within your own link it notes the exception and how derogatory lefist journalists and political pundits are using a total of two known instances to tarnish and treat badly an entire protest movement.

Speaking of reasonableness, let me ask you BR, if this were the 60's and several political pundits or newscasters were calling anyone marching "n*gg*r lovers" would you consider it appropriate and professional?

Let's go hit that wonderful UrbanDictionary.com you love so much and see what it notes
.

Hmmm...notes it isnt just EXCLUSIVE to white people in that top rated definition. Lots of people voted for it too so really, that makes to totally right for Olbermann and Maddow to use on people.

It meets the BR and MJ criteria. The most people voted on it. I'm sure two people can be found who used the term whether it be appropriately or inappropriately to describe aspects of the civil rights movement. It isn't exclusive to one group.

Perhaps now you can see why all those strawmen are just bad reasoning put up to ignore good reasoning and good points of discussion.

And yes, you are right strawmen points really are "fucking retarded" to discuss instead of addressing the actual relevant points. The relevant point was that Olbermann was issuing a long hateful monologue for no rational reason. Stewart called him out on it. His funny summation was, that he had given up thought and was just calling people names. He pointed out that even the attempts to justify it were ridiculously weak and often hypocritical (irony is a synonym for hypocritical btw.) Olbermann agreed and apologized.

So when all the critics and principals involved in the action have agreed with me and even taken appropriate action related to it, it is indeed "fucking retarded" to repeat that one is correct and credible ad-nauseum when those being defended have already given up the fight and ceded the point. It is "fucking retarded" for you and MJ to be defending Olbermann when Olbermann has already said his words were wrong.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #174 of 186
You miss the point again. The first person to use the term was a member of the movement. The first person to broadcast it was someone on Fox News. The fact that liberals saw how hilarious a double entendre it was and decided to latch onto the term is irrelevant. It was used by the movement first.

But whatever, this is dumb. Like I said, new low here. You're against gay marriage but you're all for defending gays when it conveniently fits with your political motivations. With the situation reversed, I highly doubt you'd be singing the same tune.

god this forum is such a fucking waste of time and energy. I think I've had my fill for the next several years.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #175 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You miss the point again. The first person to use the term was a member of the movement. The first person to broadcast it was someone on Fox News. The fact that liberals saw how hilarious a double entendre it was and decided to latch onto the term is irrelevant. It was used by the movement first.

But whatever, this is dumb. Like I said, new low here. You're against gay marriage but you're all for defending gays when it conveniently fits with your political motivations. With the situation reversed, I highly doubt you'd be singing the same tune.

god this forum is such a fucking waste of time and energy. I think I've had my fill for the next several years.

I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against judicial decrees. When given the opportunity to vote on Prop 8, I voted no. When the legislature passed gay marriage and Ar-NALD wouldn't sign it, I said he was wrong.

The posts are here in the forums. You can search for them. I'm just for language having meaning. When women wanted to vote, we change the laws. We didn't have a judge say man = woman or black = white. We amended the constitution to fix those points.

Also it wasn't used by the movement first. A movement isn't a movement of one or two. The exception never proves the rule. Movements are allowed to define what they want to be called and news organizations have respected it. Can you cite for me any other instance where news organizations called a protest movement something other than what it wanted to be called? Can you find me any other instance where two members determined what news organizations would call a protest group contrary to what that group desired?

You can't because these are pure ad-homs. There is no reasoning behind them besides hate. Your own link supports that point.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #176 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

They didn't use it. They used tea party. The wonderful "newscasters" like Anderson Cooper, and Rachel Maddow decided to use it as a term of ridicule. It was right there in the Wikipedia link with only FIVE citation points.

]SNIP

nd MJ to be defending Olbermann when Olbermann has already said his words were wrong.

Trumptman, I have read your post.

In it, you do not acknowledge that since 'teabagging' is not a homosexual term, Keith Olberman was not being homophobic when he used it.

'Teabagging' is not a homosexual term, you see. You said Keith Olberman was being 'homophobic' when he used it.

But he wasn't being homophobic. Because 'teabagging' is not a homosexual term.

So you made a mistake.

It's extremely simple.

You can stop this embarrassing exchange simply by acknowledging you made a mistake. It would be very good for your credibility, and it would go a long way towards reassuring everyone that you argue in good faith, since when it can be conclusively shown with absolutely no doubt that you have made a mistake you can own up to it.
post #177 of 186
Thread Starter 
CNN Political Contributer, "I can't even believe that was allowed on the air"

Quote:
EAGAN: Listen, I think Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann have both taken leave of their senses. You know, I was a Martha Coakley fan. I thought she was a great D.A. But I know Scott Brown. Hes a great guy. You cant help but like the guy. He strikes me as a wonderful family guy. Hes out there mowing the lawn. His wife, Gail Huff, has been a great reporter on Channel 5. Racist? A homophobe? Sexist? I mean, this is crazy. His politics are different than mine, but its sick.

JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO: Isnt it schtick, Howie?

KURTZ: Yeah, but at what point- but at what point does schtick become irresponsible schtick?

MARTIN: Fair enough- yes.

HOLMES: I think Keith Olbermann well passed that point with that commentary.

Isn't it sad to think there are people defending Olbermann in this instance?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #178 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

CNN Political Contributer, "I can't even believe that was allowed on the air"

Isn't it sad to think there are people defending Olbermann in this instance?

Right. Trumptman. I see. Some people don't like Keith Olbermann.

The thing is, you accused Keith Olbermann of being 'homophobic' for using the term 'teabagging.'

But 'teabagging' isn't a homosexual term, as we've seen.

So Keith Olbermann wasn't being homophobic. He couldn't have been.

At this point, you could say 'Hey, I made a mistake!' and people would see that you're capable of admitting when you get things wrong, and they might be inclined to believe that you come here to argue in good faith. (It's this kind of issue that got you banned at the other place, after all.)

It would be very good for your credibility, I think. To just admit that you made a mistake. On this tiny, tiny thing.
post #179 of 186
Though I don't dare click on a link to Faux, Mike Huckabee has penned an article entitled, "America's Second Tea Party". The blurb on Google's news page looks perfect for the average Faux viewer. Wonder if he uses the phrase Tea Party Goer, Tea Partier, or something else.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #180 of 186
Thread Starter 
Turns out the dirty tricks down just happen in Mass.

Remember who spent the summer declaring critics to not be real, but rather "astroturf?"

Who's astroturfing now?


Quote:
If Ellie Light is indeed a Democratic operative, she is only the proverbial tip of the party's astroturfing iceberg. Patterico's investigative work, which was also at the forefront of the blogosphere's efforts to expose Light, have revealed an even greater effort at manufacturing the appearance of public support for Democratic policies.................

....Those words appeared--verbatim or close to it--in at least 14 different newspapers, as documented by Patterico, despite the DNC's insistence that supporters "not use these points verbatim."

If the right even attempts to organize or protest it is worthy of major news reporting not to cover it, but to discredit it. Here we see lots of Democratic Astroturfing and as usual the liberal media complex won't investigate it. Hell, they are too busy assisting it by calling anyone who thinks or investigates it not a real news channel or a racist, sexist, -st and -ism du jour.

When will people wake up?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #181 of 186
The savior of the Right was defended by Faux, McCain and plenty of others for having foreign policy experience because of Alaska's proximity to Alaska, and all of these people stated using the same phrasing within the same 24-hour period, if I recall correctly. Like the Borg.

I can see Russia from my house! pretty much sums it all up.

They should be questioned. Hard.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #182 of 186
The saviour of the Left was not questioned at all prior to ascending to the U.S. Presidency.
Now all Americans are paying the price.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #183 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The saviour of the Left was not questioned at all prior to ascending to the U.S. Presidency.
Now all Americans are paying the price.

All americans are now paying for electing Bush twice.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #184 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The saviour of the Left was not questioned at all prior to ascending to the U.S. Presidency.
Now all Americans are paying the price.

I doubt there are many who could have known what the correct answers to the unasked questions would have been. I sure couldn't. That, and no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

However, every day after hist first in office where the main topic wasn't jobs was a day wasted...and there were far too may of them.

Obama's priorities didn't start with "the working man", it started with the "I have no insurance" man and the "I want to stop co2 emissions" man, the "I want stem cell's to be OK to use" man, etc, and that lack of attention to the most important concern of the working man has come home to roost.

He can turn it around 180 degrees by ... well, changing his direction 180 degrees. We'll see tonight. Even if he does, I doubt it'll help the Democrats, because they are so divided their message CAN'T inspire the working man to believe their elected representatives actually care about their jobs. Congress is tone deaf, I swear.

All the Republicans have to do is get Joe the Plumber to openly ask the Democratic candidate "Why don't you care about my job? Why was health care, etc, more important?" and it's a done deal.

It's all about jobs, stupid!
post #185 of 186
Thread Starter 
Yes but what you fail to remember is that paying attention to the needs of the working man is sexist because it isn't spending money on women. It's greedy because it has a carbon footprint and a possible return. He doesn't need health care because he is the oppressor even though lifespan shows that a white man won't outlive a black woman and a white woman outlives everyone. The working man doesn't need an education either even though he is barely 40% of undergrads.

The sexism and racism of the Democratic Party makes it impossible for them to address the needs of the middle class man.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #186 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I doubt there are many who could have known what the correct answers to the unasked questions would have been. I sure couldn't. That, and no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

However, every day after hist first in office where the main topic wasn't jobs was a day wasted...and there were far too may of them.

Obama's priorities didn't start with "the working man", it started with the "I have no insurance" man and the "I want to stop co2 emissions" man, the "I want stem cell's to be OK to use" man, etc, and that lack of attention to the most important concern of the working man has come home to roost.

He can turn it around 180 degrees by ... well, changing his direction 180 degrees. We'll see tonight. Even if he does, I doubt it'll help the Democrats, because they are so divided their message CAN'T inspire the working man to believe their elected representatives actually care about their jobs. Congress is tone deaf, I swear.

All the Republicans have to do is get Joe the Plumber to openly ask the Democratic candidate "Why don't you care about my job? Why was health care, etc, more important?" and it's a done deal.

It's all about jobs, stupid!

Well I do think this is such a bad problem he should have made the economy the main issue during his first year. A kind of Clinton like focus like a laser beam on the economy. I think if you see him focus on the economy you'll also see some solidarity.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democratic Dirty Tricks - Massachusetts Edition