Can I still put white sheets on my bed? ...Or, no?

[Boss]

The OP left the building quite some time ago. I already addressed it in post 4. Stick a fork in it.

No, you didn't really address the OP. You made a funny comment, I even gave you a smiley face for that.

And that sarcasm was exactly the address.

Oh wait I forgot -- you don't know what sarcasm is. I left that one off the list.

We've moved on since then to calling leftists "Liberals" calling Conservatives monolithic, inventing new definitions for the words racism and moderate...

No, we've been over all kinds of definitions and delineations between modern and classical liberals. I never said Conservatives are monolithic... that is your interpretation but it's incorrect as usual. I've not redefined "racism" or "moderate" ...we can look up the dictionary definition of those if you like.

It's on the record actually.

Doublethinking JFK's declaration of "I'm a Liberal" into "I'm a Conservative"

Again... "A rising tide floats all boats" is a direct quote from the man. It is in reference to his policy of wanting to reduce federal income tax rates and mostly for the top marginal rates. Today's liberal vehemently opposes this idea and calls it "right-wing extremism."

So... WHO is doing the "doublethinking" here and WHO is trying to present the truth?

Who's doing the strawmanning here?
Now appearing in your mirror.

Tax rates when JFK ran for POTUS were up over 90% btw. World War II didn't come cheap.

I do know what sarcasm is, unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't address an issue.

No, it's not "on the record" actually. This is a tactic deployed constantly by troll liberals like you. Set up the false narrative that an argument has been defeated and keep on repeating that lie until people believe it. And hey... credit to your favor, that tactic seems to work for you!

I've not presented any strawman. Yes, taxes were high under Kennedy, he wanted to lower them. His argument was that "a rising tide floats all boats" and that was to mean that lowering top marginal tax rates would benefit everyone... "trickle down economics" is what that became under Reagan and the liberal left have been rejecting it ever since. You now have modern liberals who want to raise the top tax rates back up to 90%, contrary to Kennedy's argument.

 

[JQPublic1]

his is pure racist liberal claptrap. No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. Conservatives believe a rising tide floats all boats... that comes from a rather famous Democrat conservative who was once president, I believe.

"No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. "

Say what??? Now I know you are delusional. John Kennedy was the last president to say he was a liberal and I haven't heard anyone in the democrat hierarchy say they were. Only frustrated right wingers continue to use the term as a pejorative put down for anyone, politician or not, who doesn't jump on board the "conservative" bandwagon.

In modern times, race continues to play a major part in the political arena. You deny it but the Right has frequently used race to galvanize White voters behind "conservative" causes. Martin Gilens nails it in his book, "Why Americans Hate Welfare." Focusing on the causal factors of that hate, a review of the book by the Library Journal reveals:

"A provocative analysis of American attitudes towards 'welfare.'. . . [Gilens] shows how racial stereotypes, not white self-interest or anti-statism, lie at the root of opposition to welfare programs." -Library Journal

Do I need to uncloak the conservative nexus? The Right played a pivotal role in masterminding and dispersion of false notions certifying the face of poverty and welfare in America is black. Must I remind you of Reagan's anecdotes pertaining to the illustrious " black Welfare Queen?" ( her blackness is questionable based on census data). If that isn't sufficient let's pull these out of the conservative closet:

Newt Gingrich told a crowd of senior citizens in New Hampshire, "The African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." Rick Santorum was even more egregious, claiming he doesn't "want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money" (although he later claimed that he never intentionally said "black").

Gingrich's latest offense comes only weeks after he received widespread criticism for saying that poor children should work as janitors and clean toilets. He specifically made a point of addressing "inner city" youths -- which has become conservative code for black and brown people everywhere, from the South to the coasts, the suburbs to the metropolises, regardless of where they actually live.

For some odd reason, this is acceptable rhetoric among the conservative political class. It is especially troubling because every reliable statistic shows that white Americans are the overwhelming beneficiaries of welfare in this country and make up the largest number of those in poverty by a wide and substantial margin. The Republicans' well-rehearsed lies on the subject have been so effective that people of every hue have come to believe them, feeding widespread ignorance about the true face of poverty and the ever-growing gap between America's rich and poor.

So you see, conservatives have put a black face on poverty and welfare. Yes I know Blacks make up 39% of those on AFDC welfare but if you include food stamps and other welfare assistance Whites jump way ahead! But welfare doesn't delineate the boundaries of poverty, there are working poor and people too proud to ask for assistance. More White people are poor than are blacks. 41% of the poor in this country are non-Hispanic Whites and 25% are Black. The face of American Poverty is White! Conservatives have ignored that and played the "impoverished Black" angle to manipulate political outcomes!

Okay... So your evidence to support your views are from a like-minded liberal nitwit and you believe that is supposed to impress others? Liberals are good at cherry-picking quotes, taking them completely out of context and then building a false argument around their perversion of reality.

You will find NO REPUBLICAN who has EVER said "most welfare recipients are black." Not today, not yesterday, not 50 years ago. There has been no such speech by a Republican candidate, no such writing in any book by a Republican, nothing... no sign of such a statement, yet here is a liberal trying to make that a reality.

We always see these statistical percentages trotted out as if they prove some grand point. Black people represent about 15% of the population, so yeah-- more white people are on welfare, more white people are wealthy, more white people are poor, more white people do drugs, more white people commit crimes, more white people own household pets, more white people buy new cars...own homes... etc. This has nothing at all to do with the state of the black community which is experiencing the highest rate of unemployment, under-employment and under-education. When a Republican points this out, he is suddenly being "racist" because some pinhead liberal wants to take his words out of context and turn it into that.

We've had over 50 years of liberal policies to combat the "War on Poverty" started by LBJ... yet statistics show the poverty level in America (for all races) is virtually unchanged. Now the prime liberal reasoning is, as always, "not enough has been done!" Well, we've spent over $20 trillion and have committed to spend another $100 trillion in coming years... so how much more can be done? We've nearly bankrupted our country trying to eliminate poverty but poverty persists relatively unchanged. The Liberal Left's answer is to keep spending money we don't have, bilk the producers of wealth some more, keep redistributing from the 'haves' to the 'have-nots' and one day when we finally reach "Utopia" all the poverty will be gone!

Conservatives believe in enabling everyone with the tools for success and motivating them to strive for success as opposed to being dependent on government. Every person in America, regardless of their resources, has had the opportunity to succeed beyond their wildest dreams. There are countless examples of people from every race overcoming adversity and poverty to become millionaires or even billionaires. Not because of government hand outs, but because they had the motivation and determination to succeed.

The links I provided are just the tip of the search engine iceberg. There are many more that support and justify my premise. The evidence on which you focus ,with your knee jerk truculence, is common knowledge. Gingrich, Reagan and Santorum made those remarks as stated in the green colored writing of my previous post; and, they made them on live television. Perhaps your mind is not sophisticated enough to see that each of them played the race card and tried to make welfare and poverty a black issue. It doesn’t take a liberal perspective to see that; all it takes is some modicum of objectivity.

Did I say any Republican has said literally that most welfare recipients are Black? Nice try but I didn’t say that. I merely pointed to the subtle snake like insinuations and overt comments where Republicans used buzz words to characterize poverty and welfare as
black social phenomena. Trying to deny that is silly since the whole world saw it televised.

There are racist “conservatives’ right here on this board who have castigated the entire black community and branded the whole lot as poverty stricken criminal beggars who cannot make it without white handouts. Do you think they vote Democrat or Republican?

THE 50 YEAR WAR ON POVERTY:

We’ve had several Republican administrations in those 50 years. Do they get any of the blame if there is any?

Our National Dept is less than 20 trillion so I guess you are caught lying again. That 17 + Trillion includes Defense Spending; interests paid on Treasury Bonds, much of which is owned by foreign entities; money owed to the Social security funds etc.ect.
BTW who is on the receiving end of all that spending..er...wouldn’t that be the rich?

Are you including social security, and Medicare in your version of the War on Poverty?
The CONS call those earned benefits entitlements. Ohhhh how they hate “entitlements.”
But don’t try to take them away from middle classed and poor Republicans because when you do, you will have created a whole new bunch of Democrats.




CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS?

Conservatives haven’t shown lately that they believe in enabling everyone with the tools for success and motivating them to strive for success. Can you show verifiable evidence of that?

What I have seen is Republican opposition to government programs like Social Security, Medicare and welfare on which tens of millions of conservatives rely themselves.

The “Christian values” so often espoused by conservatives are contradicted by the lusty desire to cut programs that feed millions of poor children.

The anti-social GOP behavior doesn’t stop there. Even our Veterans are targets. The CONS recently blocked a veteran’s bill. The Right Wing hypocrisy never stops.

 

[Pogo]

The OP left the building quite some time ago. I already addressed it in post 4. Stick a fork in it.

No, you didn't really address the OP. You made a funny comment, I even gave you a smiley face for that.

And that sarcasm was exactly the address.

Oh wait I forgot -- you don't know what sarcasm is. I left that one off the list.

We've moved on since then to calling leftists "Liberals" calling Conservatives monolithic, inventing new definitions for the words racism and moderate...

No, we've been over all kinds of definitions and delineations between modern and classical liberals. I never said Conservatives are monolithic... that is your interpretation but it's incorrect as usual. I've not redefined "racism" or "moderate" ...we can look up the dictionary definition of those if you like.

It's on the record actually.

Doublethinking JFK's declaration of "I'm a Liberal" into "I'm a Conservative"

Again... "A rising tide floats all boats" is a direct quote from the man. It is in reference to his policy of wanting to reduce federal income tax rates and mostly for the top marginal rates. Today's liberal vehemently opposes this idea and calls it "right-wing extremism."

So... WHO is doing the "doublethinking" here and WHO is trying to present the truth?

Who's doing the strawmanning here?
Now appearing in your mirror.

Tax rates when JFK ran for POTUS were up over 90% btw. World War II didn't come cheap.

I do know what sarcasm is, unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't address an issue.

No, it's not "on the record" actually. This is a tactic deployed constantly by troll liberals like you. Set up the false narrative that an argument has been defeated and keep on repeating that lie until people believe it. And hey... credit to your favor, that tactic seems to work for you!

Ahem:

Conservative does not have an ambiguous meaning, it is clearly defined and it simply represents the opposite of an extremist or radical. There is no such thing as "mainstream or moderate" conservative... you are either a Conservative or you're not a Conservative.

I've not presented any strawman. Yes, taxes were high under Kennedy, he wanted to lower them. His argument was that "a rising tide floats all boats" and that was to mean that lowering top marginal tax rates would benefit everyone... "trickle down economics" is what that became under Reagan <snip>

Yuh huh. Trickle this down, pal.

​

... and the liberal left

I told you before -- PICK one. You can't have "liberal left" any more than you can have "banana Toyota".

have been rejecting it ever since. You now have modern liberals who want to raise the top tax rates back up to 90%, contrary to Kennedy's argument.

 

[Boss]

Our National Dept is less than 20 trillion so I guess you are caught lying again.

Well no, because I never claimed that our debt was totally the result of 'war on poverty' programs. A lot of our yearly deficit now comes from paying the interest on outstanding debt. My point was, we've spent over $20 trillion on the 'war on poverty' with little or no results.

 

[Boss]

CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS?

Conservatives haven’t shown lately that they believe in enabling everyone with the tools for success and motivating them to strive for success. Can you show verifiable evidence of that?

What I have seen is Republican opposition to government programs like Social Security, Medicare and welfare on which tens of millions of conservatives rely themselves.

The “Christian values” so often espoused by conservatives are contradicted by the lusty desire to cut programs that feed millions of poor children.

And I am betting you can't back up a damn thing you're saying with legitimate facts. The first and most obvious error is your seamless transitioning from Conservative to Republican as if they mean the same thing. You speak of what you haven't seen from Conservatives and what you have seen from Republicans... bur Republicans are not necessarily Conservatives. In fact, the GOP is currently having a great internal debate over who they are and it pits establishment elites (who are in the pocket of corporatists and crony capitalist fat cats) against true Constitutional Conservatives.

Conservatives are certainly NOT opposed to Social Security and never have been. They are the only people who have proposed viable plans to SAVE Social Security, and it is constantly perverted into cries from liberals that they want to destroy it. This stems from YOU not understanding the significance of the problem with Social Security or the fact that it's going under if we don't act now. When the day comes that SS can't sustain itself any longer, you will invent lies and pervert things that were said to make it appear it's all the fault of those mean old Republicans who wanted it to "wither on the vine" and such. Why do I know this? Because it's what you always do! You create policies which create more problems than they fix, then you blame the failure on your opposition.

There is NO "lusty desire" from Christians or Conservatives regarding the issue of balancing our finances and living within our means. No one who I know of wants poor people to starve or their children to do without... BUT, if we don't get some sanity back in our budget and spending, that is exactly what will end up happening in America. You live with your head in the clouds, dreaming of this fucking Utopian vision that we'll never realize and can't be realized. You keep wanting to cede our freedoms over to government and put more and more responsibility on society to take care of everybody and these kind of policies end up in disaster. You cannot sustain an economy like that... eventually it collapses and no one has anything.

All of your rants are based on emotive bullshit spewed by idiots and Socialists. You are no different than the SHEEP who were led to their slaughter and demise under Chairman Mao.

 

[Boss]

The OP left the building quite some time ago. I already addressed it in post 4. Stick a fork in it.

No, you didn't really address the OP. You made a funny comment, I even gave you a smiley face for that.

And that sarcasm was exactly the address.

Oh wait I forgot -- you don't know what sarcasm is. I left that one off the list.

We've moved on since then to calling leftists "Liberals" calling Conservatives monolithic, inventing new definitions for the words racism and moderate...

No, we've been over all kinds of definitions and delineations between modern and classical liberals. I never said Conservatives are monolithic... that is your interpretation but it's incorrect as usual. I've not redefined "racism" or "moderate" ...we can look up the dictionary definition of those if you like.

It's on the record actually.

Doublethinking JFK's declaration of "I'm a Liberal" into "I'm a Conservative"

Again... "A rising tide floats all boats" is a direct quote from the man. It is in reference to his policy of wanting to reduce federal income tax rates and mostly for the top marginal rates. Today's liberal vehemently opposes this idea and calls it "right-wing extremism."

So... WHO is doing the "doublethinking" here and WHO is trying to present the truth?

Who's doing the strawmanning here?
Now appearing in your mirror.

Tax rates when JFK ran for POTUS were up over 90% btw. World War II didn't come cheap.

I do know what sarcasm is, unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't address an issue.

No, it's not "on the record" actually. This is a tactic deployed constantly by troll liberals like you. Set up the false narrative that an argument has been defeated and keep on repeating that lie until people believe it. And hey... credit to your favor, that tactic seems to work for you!

Ahem:

Conservative does not have an ambiguous meaning, it is clearly defined and it simply represents the opposite of an extremist or radical. There is no such thing as "mainstream or moderate" conservative... you are either a Conservative or you're not a Conservative.

I've not presented any strawman. Yes, taxes were high under Kennedy, he wanted to lower them. His argument was that "a rising tide floats all boats" and that was to mean that lowering top marginal tax rates would benefit everyone... "trickle down economics" is what that became under Reagan <snip>

Yuh huh. Trickle this down, pal.

​

... and the liberal left

I told you before -- PICK one. You can't have "liberal left" any more than you can have "banana Toyota".

have been rejecting it ever since. You now have modern liberals who want to raise the top tax rates back up to 90%, contrary to Kennedy's argument.

Poges... I don't understand your argument or what the graph is supposed to prove. I have not denied that top marginal rates have been reduced. The first time it happened was under Kennedy.. it's what he ran on and was elected on. His argument was: A rising tide floats all boats. That was my quote from earlier which I presented in response to a liberal bashing conservatism.

I also don't understand what you think is a strawman... Some liberals today are calling for a return to 90% tax rates for the "wealthy" which they misconstrue as being high income earners. You are so fucking invested in your memes and distortions that no one can rationally talk to you anymore... you just shut them out and start churning out regurgitated propaganda over and over.

 

[JQPublic1]

Our National Dept is less than 20 trillion so I guess you are caught lying again.

Well no, because I never claimed that our debt was totally the result of 'war on poverty' programs. A lot of our yearly deficit now comes from paying the interest on outstanding debt. My point was, we've spent over $20 trillion on the 'war on poverty' with little or no results.

If that 20 Trillion had been placed directly into the hands of the poor It would have been spent on goods and services. The economy would have boomed for the last 50 years, inflation not withstanding.

Tell me, what happened to that 20 Trillion? It didn't just evaporate. Who at the end of the spending chain is hoarding it? Why isn't that money circulating to boost job growth and to help fight poverty? Could that 20 trillion be the source behind the phenomenon whereas the rich got richer and the poor got poorer?


Again I ask, what was 20 trillion dollars spent on? Please be specific.

 

[JQPublic1]

CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS?

Conservatives haven’t shown lately that they believe in enabling everyone with the tools for success and motivating them to strive for success. Can you show verifiable evidence of that?

What I have seen is Republican opposition to government programs like Social Security, Medicare and welfare on which tens of millions of conservatives rely themselves.

The “Christian values” so often espoused by conservatives are contradicted by the lusty desire to cut programs that feed millions of poor children.

And I am betting you can't back up a damn thing you're saying with legitimate facts. The first and most obvious error is your seamless transitioning from Conservative to Republican as if they mean the same thing. You speak of what you haven't seen from Conservatives and what you have seen from Republicans... bur Republicans are not necessarily Conservatives. In fact, the GOP is currently having a great internal debate over who they are and it pits establishment elites (who are in the pocket of corporatists and crony capitalist fat cats) against true Constitutional Conservatives.

Conservatives are certainly NOT opposed to Social Security and never have been. They are the only people who have proposed viable plans to SAVE Social Security, and it is constantly perverted into cries from liberals that they want to destroy it. This stems from YOU not understanding the significance of the problem with Social Security or the fact that it's going under if we don't act now. When the day comes that SS can't sustain itself any longer, you will invent lies and pervert things that were said to make it appear it's all the fault of those mean old Republicans who wanted it to "wither on the vine" and such. Why do I know this? Because it's what you always do! You create policies which create more problems than they fix, then you blame the failure on your opposition.

There is NO "lusty desire" from Christians or Conservatives regarding the issue of balancing our finances and living within our means. No one who I know of wants poor people to starve or their children to do without... BUT, if we don't get some sanity back in our budget and spending, that is exactly what will end up happening in America. You live with your head in the clouds, dreaming of this fucking Utopian vision that we'll never realize and can't be realized. You keep wanting to cede our freedoms over to government and put more and more responsibility on society to take care of everybody and these kind of policies end up in disaster. You cannot sustain an economy like that... eventually it collapses and no one has anything.

All of your rants are based on emotive bullshit spewed by idiots and Socialists. You are no different than the SHEEP who were led to their slaughter and demise under Chairman Mao.

Speaking of backing things up with verifiable facts, I haven't seen much of that coming from you lately.
You diverted when brought irrefutable proof that Republicans had put a black face on poverty and welfare.
Live national TV coverage is hard to dispute, isn't it? You can't conjure up some faceless liberal to blame when the evidence is broadcast for all to see.

You make spurious claims and then expect me to back mine up while taking yours at face value.
I was born yesterday but I stayed up all night. Here is one example of your deviousness.

You said that conservatives believe in enabling everyone with the tools needed for success and motivating them to strive for success. I asked for verifiable evidence of that but was ignored. Now you demand I verify
the conservative inclinations to cut social programs including those helping to feed poor children.
I want you to know this is a give and take debate. It isn't a one way show and tell. Either we both honor requests or neither of us do, OK?

Your comment about me transitioning between the terms conservative and Republican is interesting.
Apparently you've got physic ability that enables you to differentiate between Republicans and right wing conservatives by just sniffing the air. Look, to be honest, a person might be conservative on one issue but liberal on another major issue. Ordinary Americans vacillate between conservative and liberal issues sometimes and often change their minds the next time around.

The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are just haphazardly tossed around, especially on message boards. But make no mistake, the GOP has decidedly become the bastion of all forms of Conservatism as well as pseudo-consrevatism. Conservatism is the new code word for White male bonding and dominance. The GOP is the final rallying point for the status quo and "traditional American values." Unfortunately, some of those "American Values seem to be far to closely related to racial values embraced by the KKK, the CCC, and other Supremacist groups who gather under the banner of Republican conservatism.

Your attempt to separate Conservatives from Republicans might rest on sound logic but the reality shows something different. Most White males identify themselves as "conservative Republicans." regardless of any book definitions. Romney got more than 90% of the White vote in the last election. ThAT certainly lends credence to MY premise. White Conservatism has undergone a metamorphosis in the past 50 years as has liberalism. Still clearly recognizable, though, is the central theme: resistance to change.

I am no Sheep but EWE appear to be.

 

[Boss]

Our National Dept is less than 20 trillion so I guess you are caught lying again.

Well no, because I never claimed that our debt was totally the result of 'war on poverty' programs. A lot of our yearly deficit now comes from paying the interest on outstanding debt. My point was, we've spent over $20 trillion on the 'war on poverty' with little or no results.

If that 20 Trillion had been placed directly into the hands of the poor It would have been spent on goods and services. The economy would have boomed for the last 50 years, inflation not withstanding.

Tell me, what happened to that 20 Trillion? It didn't just evaporate. Who at the end of the spending chain is hoarding it? Why isn't that money circulating to boost job growth and to help fight poverty? Could that 20 trillion be the source behind the phenomenon whereas the rich got richer and the poor got poorer?


Again I ask, what was 20 trillion dollars spent on? Please be specific.

Tellya what do... Sometime this week, take a trip downtown to some Federal agency and look around. You will see many employees mostly doing nothing. There are literally thousands and thousands of these places all over America. Bureaucrats stacked on top of more bureaucrats. Every Federal agency in every state has a Director, Assistant Director, Managing Director, Assistant Managing Director, Associate Director, Assistant Associate Director, Junior Director, Assistant Junior Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Director of Assistant and Junior Directors... on and on and on and on! They all get a free company car, a gas account, expense account, plus Federal pension and pay scale for as long as they work and don't get busted for drugs or something.

Each time Congress reviews a budget, there is an automatic increase in funding for every program ever implemented. If anyone attempts to change that increase or limit it in any way, it is turned into a political football and that person is destroyed. We blow all kinds of money on programs that haven't ever worked and never will, simply because they are legislated into existence and no one can eliminate them.

But you are correct, we would have been MUCH better off to have simply written a check to every poor person for $100k back in 1965 and been done with it. Instead, we created a massive Federal bureaucracy that gobbles up most of the money before it ever gets to who it helps. This is why private sector solutions are always better.

The biggest problem with entitlement programs is this... people become dependent and unmotivated to do anything else. Not ALL people, but a lot. They are content to sit on their ass and collect a handout rather than do something. You're not "helping" anyone by enabling their dependence on government. You are merely making them slaves. Now, they don't have to pick cotton in the hot sun, they just sit at home under the air conditioner, wait for their check and vote Democrat.

 

[Boss]

Look, to be honest, a person might be conservative on one issue but liberal on another major issue. Ordinary Americans vacillate between conservative and liberal issues sometimes and often change their minds the next time around.

You are clueless when it comes to Constitutional Conservatism. You are still trying to see "Conservatism" as a counter-ideology to Liberalism and it's simply not. Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology. It is the opposition philosophy to extremism or radicalism. Under the Conservative philosophy, you have many various ideologies, some of which clash dramatically. I gave the best example before of Libertarians and Social Cons. Both can be Constitutional Conservatives but also hold very different ideological viewpoints.

 

[Boss]

Conservatism is the new code word for White male bonding and dominance.

Sounds kinky to me.

 

[Boss]

Most White males identify themselves as "conservative Republicans." regardless of any book definitions. Romney got more than 90% of the White vote in the last election. ThAT certainly lends credence to MY premise. White Conservatism has undergone a metamorphosis in the past 50 years as has liberalism.

What is your obsession with race? You know, I seriously doubt your 90% White Romney vote statistic and I'd like to publicly challenge whatever racist assmunch came up with it... PROVE those people are "white" and not some combination of various races! Because, unless they are Jews, they probably have numerous ethnic ties in their genealogy. Very few people on the planet are PURE white.

I am Cherokee, Choctaw, Creole, African, Asian and Germanic Black Dutch. Guess I can't be a White Conservative anymore, huh?

Your little rant exposes the insidious racist views of the liberal left. Everything is about skin color for you. Fuck what Dr. MLK, Jr. said, you don't really give a shit about living in a colorblind society because you wouldn't be able to race bait anymore.

 

[Pogo]

Speaking of backing things up with verifiable facts, I haven't seen much of that coming from you lately.
You diverted when brought irrefutable proof that Republicans had put a black face on poverty and welfare.
Live national TV coverage is hard to dispute, isn't it? You can't conjure up some faceless liberal to blame when the evidence is broadcast for all to see.

You make spurious claims and then expect me to back mine up while taking yours at face value.
I was born yesterday but I stayed up all night. Here is one example of your deviousness.

You said that conservatives believe in enabling everyone with the tools needed for success and motivating them to strive for success. I asked for verifiable evidence of that but was ignored. Now you demand I verify
the conservative inclinations to cut social programs including those helping to feed poor children.
I want you to know this is a give and take debate. It isn't a one way show and tell. Either we both honor requests or neither of us do, OK?

Your comment about me transitioning between the terms conservative and Republican is interesting.
Apparently you've got physic ability that enables you to differentiate between Republicans and right wing conservatives by just sniffing the air. Look, to be honest, a person might be conservative on one issue but liberal on another major issue. Ordinary Americans vacillate between conservative and liberal issues sometimes and often change their minds the next time around.

The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are just haphazardly tossed around, especially on message boards. But make no mistake, the GOP has decidedly become the bastion of all forms of Conservatism as well as pseudo-consrevatism. Conservatism is the new code word for White male bonding and dominance. The GOP is the final rallying point for the status quo and "traditional American values." Unfortunately, some of those "American Values seem to be far to closely related to racial values embraced by the KKK, the CCC, and other Supremacist groups who gather under the banner of Republican conservatism.

Your attempt to separate Conservatives from Republicans might rest on sound logic but the reality shows something different.

I'm with ya on most of the above. "Boss" just seems to be making it up as he goes along as far as political terminology.

But I gotta take issue here:

Most White males identify themselves as "conservative Republicans." regardless of any book definitions. Romney got more than 90% of the White vote in the last election.

That's not even remotely close. Romney actually got 59% of the White vote, not 90. Source here.

I am no Sheep but EWE appear to be.

Touché.

 

[Boss]

"Boss" just seems to be making it up as he goes along as far as political terminology.

Well no... you just don't seem to comprehend things too well.

Here is one of your more brilliant quotes:

"You can't have 'liberal left' any more than you can have 'banana Toyota'."

Now... WHO is making it up as the go on political terminology again? Is there anyone out there who will stand up and say they 100% agree with this quote? There are no such thing as left-wing liberals in the American political spectrum?

#facepalm

 

[Pogo]

"Boss" just seems to be making it up as he goes along as far as political terminology.

Well no... you just don't seem to comprehend things too well.

Here is one of your more brilliant quotes:

"You can't have 'liberal left' any more than you can have 'banana Toyota'."

Now... WHO is making it up as the go on political terminology again? Is there anyone out there who will stand up and say they 100% agree with this quote? There are no such thing as left-wing liberals in the American political spectrum?

#facepalm

This is what I keep saying -- you're lost dood.

 

[Boss]

This is what I keep saying -- you're lost dood.

I suppose spelling is also not one of your better skills?

 

[bendog]

The latest crusade from the 'tolerant' liberal left, seems to be the good ol' Confederate flag! Imagine that? All the assorted problems we have out there and the one thing liberals have chosen to make the "Issue of the Moment" is something they believe they can goad the right into a "racial" stand-off about. Who ever saw something like that coming?

With all the talk about how the Confederate flag is somehow a "symbol of racist hate" I have to ask, am I still allowed to use white sheets on my bed? Because I really do like the white sheets, always have preferred them. 100% cotton and mother-fucking high thread count. Egyptian cotton are The Best!

But... I really don't know if it is appropriate anymore. White sheets are clearly a "symbol of racist hate" as much as the Confederate battle flag. So are pickup trucks and mullets, but I am mainly concerned about the white sheets. I don't want to offend anyone... what if I brought home a lady of a different race and she saw my white sheets and freaked out? I would never forgive myself for being so politically incorrect! So I really do need some input from radical liberal lefties on this... ARE white sheets still okay?

As for the Confederate battle flag... I don't care, take it down, erase it from all the history books... pretend it never existed. After all, we don't allow people to run around waving the Swastika flag anymore... oh wait, we do? Yes, we call that "freedom of speech" and we tolerate it. But the Confederate flag, even though it has been hijacked by racist hate groups and turned into a symbol of racial hate, is a different story. You see, it can be politically used to get some stupid republican to say something really stupid and libs can turn that into "republican calls for return to slavery" and destroy them. So yeah, get rid of it... burn it... forget about it.

But... the white sheets? ...Yes or no?

If you were a real man, you wouldn't need to ask what to do with a white sheet.

 

[Boss]

That's not even remotely close. Romney actually got 59% of the White vote, not 90.

LMAo... he means Romney got 90% of the White Republican Conservative Male votes.

 

[JQPublic1]

Speaking of backing things up with verifiable facts, I haven't seen much of that coming from you lately.
You diverted when brought irrefutable proof that Republicans had put a black face on poverty and welfare.
Live national TV coverage is hard to dispute, isn't it? You can't conjure up some faceless liberal to blame when the evidence is broadcast for all to see.

You make spurious claims and then expect me to back mine up while taking yours at face value.
I was born yesterday but I stayed up all night. Here is one example of your deviousness.

You said that conservatives believe in enabling everyone with the tools needed for success and motivating them to strive for success. I asked for verifiable evidence of that but was ignored. Now you demand I verify
the conservative inclinations to cut social programs including those helping to feed poor children.
I want you to know this is a give and take debate. It isn't a one way show and tell. Either we both honor requests or neither of us do, OK?

Your comment about me transitioning between the terms conservative and Republican is interesting.
Apparently you've got physic ability that enables you to differentiate between Republicans and right wing conservatives by just sniffing the air. Look, to be honest, a person might be conservative on one issue but liberal on another major issue. Ordinary Americans vacillate between conservative and liberal issues sometimes and often change their minds the next time around.

The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are just haphazardly tossed around, especially on message boards. But make no mistake, the GOP has decidedly become the bastion of all forms of Conservatism as well as pseudo-consrevatism. Conservatism is the new code word for White male bonding and dominance. The GOP is the final rallying point for the status quo and "traditional American values." Unfortunately, some of those "American Values seem to be far to closely related to racial values embraced by the KKK, the CCC, and other Supremacist groups who gather under the banner of Republican conservatism.

Your attempt to separate Conservatives from Republicans might rest on sound logic but the reality shows something different.

I'm with ya on most of the above. "Boss" just seems to be making it up as he goes along as far as political terminology.

But I gotta take issue here:

Most White males identify themselves as "conservative Republicans." regardless of any book definitions. Romney got more than 90% of the White vote in the last election.

That's not even remotely close. Romney actually got 59% of the White vote, not 90. Source here.

I am no Sheep but EWE appear to be.

Touché.

What I meant to say was:

White people who voted for Romney made up 42.5 percent of the overall vote. That works out to 88 percent of Romney voters being white.

I rounded it up to 90%. Thanks for noting the error.

 

[Mac1958]

Fuck what Dr. MLK, Jr. said, you don't really give a shit about living in a colorblind society because you wouldn't be able to race bait anymore.

Bingo.

.