Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?

[dannyboys]

Christy is a shit head who is willing to send to prison the people that worked for him to cover his own crimes.


how many of those people do you think will TURN on him now and out his whole shitpile of lies?

Just watch how many people won't "turn on him". Even the radical LIB talking heads are warning other radical LIB talking heads to be careful b/c if Chritie is found to have done nothing illegal the effort to defame him is going to back-fire and Christie will be even more popular to the voters should he run.
But predictably the simians at MSNBS will NEVER stop trying to smear Christie. You watch Matthew's slobber and scream right up to election day if Christie runs. Should be good for a laugh.
Something to notice on MSNBS: Watch Matthews and the same daily 'guest experts' some time. Look carefully at Matthew's/Corns/Deons/Perry's etc lips. Everyone of these radical LIBs have something in common: They all have some sort of minor speech impediment and they all sort of slather when they talk and they all have very tiny tight lips. Is it the water? Whatever it is if you look carefully you will see for yourself. It's sort of curious.

 

[Silhouette]

Just watch how many people won't "turn on him". Even the radical LIB talking heads are warning other radical LIB talking heads to be careful b/c if Chritie is found to have done nothing illegal the effort to defame him is going to back-fire and Christie will be even more popular to the voters should he run.
But predictably the simians at MSNBS will NEVER stop trying to smear Christie. You watch Matthew's slobber and scream right up to election day if Christie runs. Should be good for a laugh.
Something to notice on MSNBS: Watch Matthews and the same daily 'guest experts' some time. Look carefully at Matthew's/Corns/Deons/Perry's etc lips. Everyone of these radical LIBs have something in common: They all have some sort of minor speech impediment and they all sort of slather when they talk and they all have very tiny tight lips. Is it the water? Whatever it is if you look carefully you will see for yourself. It's sort of curious.

Agreed. And democratic strategists [providing those two words can exist next to each other logically] should sit up and take note:

Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well. Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party. Their main media spokeswoman coming across as a tyrant when state after state is suffering the humiliation and oppression of being told they can't detemine behavioral standards for marriage because "there's a new CULTure in town", means an audible side step to the right of the tens of millions in the middle bloc of pragmatic voters. People remember their political science classes even if they barely passed them. When the fundamentals of American democracy [the vote in each state to govern itself] are ripped away, even the dull and ignorant become alarmed. The people I talk to are far more alarmed about the gay marriage steamroller crushing voters rights and first amendment rights and accessing orphaned children though the loophole of marriage than ever alarmed by everyday hanky panky in politicians on the right or the left.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can't destroy someone is their actions you're bringing to light aren't something they should be destroyed for. If you're innocent, no amount of public revelation will negatively effect you. If you're guilty of something though, having it brought to light isn't illegitimate just because political opposition did it. You're destroyed yourself. That someone found out is your own fault.

 

[Synthaholic]

It isn't per se. But when a media head launches out with obvious mal intent, nay, glee, to destroy someone's career come hell or high water, then there's a problem. Especially before there's a conviction. Maddow isn't even shy about it. She smiles ear to ear, gives cheeky, snarky looks at the camera as she cheerfully alludes that the end game is to see these various guys and gals she's targeted on her show go to prison or jail. And she does this in a very public venue to exact the effect of destroying their career without even a conviction.

No, she is helping lay the groundwork for their eventual conviction, doing what reporters have done for centuries: break news. She did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, Steve Kornacki did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, etc.

It's called journalism.

The fact that she enjoys exposing Right-Wing hypocrisy is irrelevant to the facts she presents.

You know that she is stepping over the line and proclaiming-alluding guilty before a trial is held. With glee and great repetition no less. Which in her type of exposure is tantamount to actively destroying someone's career without cause. A proper exercise of journalism would be to present the facts as they unfold, with a sober demeanor and not cheer on a guilty verdict before an investigation is complete.

Bull. She has proclaimed no one guilty. All of her shows are online, broken down by segment. Feel free to find her leaping to a conclusion regarding guilt.

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

 

[Synthaholic]

Just watch how many people won't "turn on him". Even the radical LIB talking heads are warning other radical LIB talking heads to be careful b/c if Chritie is found to have done nothing illegal the effort to defame him is going to back-fire and Christie will be even more popular to the voters should he run.
But predictably the simians at MSNBS will NEVER stop trying to smear Christie. You watch Matthew's slobber and scream right up to election day if Christie runs. Should be good for a laugh.
Something to notice on MSNBS: Watch Matthews and the same daily 'guest experts' some time. Look carefully at Matthew's/Corns/Deons/Perry's etc lips. Everyone of these radical LIBs have something in common: They all have some sort of minor speech impediment and they all sort of slather when they talk and they all have very tiny tight lips. Is it the water? Whatever it is if you look carefully you will see for yourself. It's sort of curious.

Agreed. And democratic strategists [providing those two words can exist next to each other logically] should sit up and take note:

Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well. Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party. Their main media spokeswoman coming across as a tyrant when state after state is suffering the humiliation and oppression of being told they can't detemine behavioral standards for marriage because "there's a new CULTure in town", means an audible side step to the right of the tens of millions in the middle bloc of pragmatic voters. People remember their political science classes even if they barely passed them. When the fundamentals of American democracy [the vote in each state to govern itself] are ripped away, even the dull and ignorant become alarmed. The people I talk to are far more alarmed about the gay marriage steamroller crushing voters rights and first amendment rights and accessing orphaned children though the loophole of marriage than ever alarmed by everyday hanky panky in politicians on the right or the left.

This is pure bubble thinking.

#1- the "attack" on Christie has not failed. There are multiple investigations that will be going on for months.

#2 - a tiny percentage of people in this country watch Duck Dynasty. Many more watch SpongeBob Squarepants. Only in Right-Wing Bubble World do these "characters" have any relevance to anything.

#3 - Chik-Fil-A. Another tiny percentage of Americans give a shit. Whoop dee do!

#4 - Marriage equality is pretty much a settled issue with the majority of the country supporting it. Even reddest of all red states Utah is split evenly.

Your victimization schtick doesn't play in Peoria any longer.

 

[Truthmatters]

they are willing to cheat in elections to win.


they are not fair or honest about anything


they are traitors to our democracy

 

[Silhouette]

You know that she is stepping over the line and proclaiming-alluding guilty before a trial is held. With glee and great repetition no less. Which in her type of exposure is tantamount to actively destroying someone's career without cause. A proper exercise of journalism would be to present the facts as they unfold, with a sober demeanor and not cheer on a guilty verdict before an investigation is complete.

Bull. She has proclaimed no one guilty. All of her shows are online, broken down by segment. Feel free to find her leaping to a conclusion regarding guilt.

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

I say we agree to disagree. I say her demeanor is that of a prosecutor and not a fact finder. You see it differently. More importantly, I wonder how the general public sees it. And even more importantly still, I wonder what its doing to our country, her type of "journalism" on certain issues & the Glenn Beckian type as well in the other extreme zealot camp?

And here's another thing to consider. It's possible that a lot of people might see Chris Christie's tenacity and grit and willingness to step on, or even stomp on people's toes as refreshing after Barack Kumbayabama. His weakness is frankly nauseating. And that effeminant male fad so common now on the far left is equally as nauseating. Chris Christie stands up [and it's not just an act] to both republicans and democrats. He virtually flipped the GOP the finger when they gave him crap about being kindly and negotiating with Obama for help with Hurricane Sandy. Remember back then? Maddow was giving him a nudge, a thumbs up. I suspect that now that she sees him as a potential threat to the gay agen....er. ..I mean "the democrats" winning 2016, suddenly Christie is the enemy! I mean, it's pretty transparent.

 

[Silhouette]

People sometimes assume as we debate that I'm pitching for one party or the other. I'm not. What I am is the extreme in both parties' worst nightmare. I'm a middle voter, not part of the independent party but independent in the sense that I'm a demographic that cannot be nailed down. We, and there are 10s of millions of us, don't subscribe blindly to a political ilk like it is a religion. Remember y'all on the far left, you taught us well: just say no to religious thinking.

We need proof. We are educating ourselves in the media now with a world library on the issues of the day right at our fingertips in the nanosecond we think we want to know about it. On any given topic we can access 10 different views and opinions. You might be tempted to say this makes us less able to define where we stand. I say the opposite. All the varying opinions sets us back into our own minds for the final say, checking our own inner compass for what makes sense; what is pragmatic. We are all engaged in one great big debate and things are truly changing. What may surpise you though is that what may be changing soon is the blind and unchecked "progress" without an end game in sight. ie: we may be returning to a new/old fashioned type of solid and sane conservativism with a few new things learned along the way.

People are basically grounded folk who want food on the table, to help put it there and to have a society where you can hang your hat on social structures and where people treat you as decently as you treat them. Things learned along the way would be that blacks or other minorities cannot join in this bucolic serenity-how that is wrong. On the opposite extreme, we learn that not all behaviors are to be tolerated in the name of liberty. Some are just patently insane and over the line and do not promote the best welfare of a stable society.

It sounds boring, I know. Especially to the young. But there is a new generation popping up behind the millenials that is *done* with all the hype. They're wanting jobs, they're wanting traditional male-female relationships to be back in vogue, they're wanting to not own or drive cars, they're wanting good healthy food and a clean predictable environment to take days off in. In short, they're craving a vacuum in our nation: sanity. They want a sane environment to explore and live in as they age. That's all anyone really wants when you boil it down.

And that is problematic now for both the extreme political right and political extreme left, their spindoctors, hypnotists and bishops. The "Middlers" like me only want religion when it makes logical sense for the greater good of the structure of the matrix we all live in. We want freedom too, when it makes logical sense for the greater good of the structure of the matrix we all live in. Those are our interests.

Now, woo away or accept what you get at the voting booths. Just don't say you weren't thrown a bone.

 

[Silhouette]

This is pure bubble thinking.

#1- the "attack" on Christie has not failed. There are multiple investigations that will be going on for months.

#2 - a tiny percentage of people in this country watch Duck Dynasty. Many more watch SpongeBob Squarepants. Only in Right-Wing Bubble World do these "characters" have any relevance to anything.

#3 - Chik-Fil-A. Another tiny percentage of Americans give a shit. Whoop dee do!

#4 - Marriage equality is pretty much a settled issue with the majority of the country supporting it. Even reddest of all red states Utah is split evenly.

Your victimization schtick doesn't play in Peoria any longer.

As to #1: Thanks for indicating that "something" "has not failed". If not an attack, then what is it that hasn't failed yet? hmm?

As to #2: The Protest A&E Facebook page got over a million hits in mere hours after it was posted. Electronic submission is really easy. So let's say maybe 200 people agree with every 1 person who showed up to like that page. There's a rule of thumb in politics that for every phone call a politican receives, they assume that there's something like 3,000 people who feel the same way. Phone calls are relatively easy so we can expand on that number for some type of contact, indication or protest that is more difficult for citizens to pull off. This brings me to

#3: All across the country at the Chic Fil A protest, supporting the CEOs right to free speech to object to gay marriage [an implied rejection of gay marriage in those that showed up]. People didn't just pick up the phone and call their Represntatives. No, they woke up, showered, drove a distance away to stand in line for hours in the heat, only to be told there were only sodas left or some such by the time they reached the counter...all to show how upset/angry/pissed off they were at gays clamping down on democracy. Taking the formula of phone calls of 1/3000, just mulitply the heads you see when you do a Google search on "chic fil a protest" in images by more like 10,000, at least, given the difficulties people had to face in the heat, standing line, the drive, lack of parking and still the tenacity to show up and protest the gay steamroller. Here's just a tiny sample of the many pictures of different Chic Fil As that day that you will find when searching:

As to #4: Harvey Milk marriage or the church of LGBT marriage is most certainly not a settled issue in the US. You may have heard that Utah and Oklahoma are fighting it tooth and nail citing Windsor. You might want to have a read of Windsor when you get a moment to see the gist of how the Court feels about states deciding gay marriage. They said that the state's role in deciding gay marriage was of central relevance to that case. Then they went on to cite Loving v Virginia. Then they went on to say that as of the rendering of the DOMA Opinion, gay marriage was only legal "in some states".

Pretty sure they're not going to walk that one back within a year's time. And you know that if Utah prevails, so will California and all other states where gay marraige was forced upon the governed by judicial activists. And guess what else they said in DOMA? That a state's "unquestioned authority" under the question and context of approving gay marriage, or not, was retroactive to the founding of the country.. As to #4, don't count your usurping of democracy before it hatches.

 

[Silhouette]

they are willing to cheat in elections to win.


they are not fair or honest about anything


they are traitors to our democracy

Are you talking about democrats? I'm a democrat. I started this thread. Look at my signature. Don't assume that we are all about the far left agenda. Just as I imagine that there are some republicans who aren't all about fracking. Especially in the midwest where the destruction of their fresh water sources underground is especially worrisome to them.

Fracking is converting more hardline republicans towards the left. The gay agenda is converting more hardline liberal towards the right. Insane trends and policies tend to do that. When a madman feels complete liberty to mow down the rights of the people who set the standards of sanity and normalcy, there tends to be this threshold that, once crossed, triggers a snap into resistance mode and a visceral repulsion begins.

It's like a lifesaving mechanism we all have. Probably traced back to the ancient days when our ancestors had to learn to recognize the early symptoms of rabies in others...or something along those lines. I wrote this thread because I'm seeing signs of rabies in Rachael Maddow when it comes to the gay agenda. And while other democrats play along like nothing is wrong, my views are closer to the middle and of a clearer vision. The rose tint on my glasses isn't as dark. If you read my signature you become instantly aware how good and decent people of any political affiliation cannot embrace the unembraceable. Likewise, the good and decent people of any political affiliation cannot embrace fracking.

 

[Synthaholic]

You know that she is stepping over the line and proclaiming-alluding guilty before a trial is held. With glee and great repetition no less. Which in her type of exposure is tantamount to actively destroying someone's career without cause. A proper exercise of journalism would be to present the facts as they unfold, with a sober demeanor and not cheer on a guilty verdict before an investigation is complete.

Bull. She has proclaimed no one guilty. All of her shows are online, broken down by segment. Feel free to find her leaping to a conclusion regarding guilt.

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

I say we agree to disagree. I say her demeanor is that of a prosecutor and not a fact finder. You see it differently. More importantly, I wonder how the general public sees it. And even more importantly still, I wonder what its doing to our country, her type of "journalism" on certain issues & the Glenn Beckian type as well in the other extreme zealot camp?

And here's another thing to consider. It's possible that a lot of people might see Chris Christie's tenacity and grit and willingness to step on, or even stomp on people's toes as refreshing after Barack Kumbayabama. His weakness is frankly nauseating. And that effeminant male fad so common now on the far left is equally as nauseating. Chris Christie stands up [and it's not just an act] to both republicans and democrats. He virtually flipped the GOP the finger when they gave him crap about being kindly and negotiating with Obama for help with Hurricane Sandy. Remember back then? Maddow was giving him a nudge, a thumbs up. I suspect that now that she sees him as a potential threat to the gay agen....er. ..I mean "the democrats" winning 2016, suddenly Christie is the enemy! I mean, it's pretty transparent.

You made an accusation: that she has proclaimed people guilty. Back up your bullshit.

 

[Synthaholic]

This is pure bubble thinking.

#1- the "attack" on Christie has not failed. There are multiple investigations that will be going on for months.

#2 - a tiny percentage of people in this country watch Duck Dynasty. Many more watch SpongeBob Squarepants. Only in Right-Wing Bubble World do these "characters" have any relevance to anything.

#3 - Chik-Fil-A. Another tiny percentage of Americans give a shit. Whoop dee do!

#4 - Marriage equality is pretty much a settled issue with the majority of the country supporting it. Even reddest of all red states Utah is split evenly.

Your victimization schtick doesn't play in Peoria any longer.

As to #1: Thanks for indicating that "something" "has not failed". If not an attack, then what is it that hasn't failed yet? hmm?

As to #2: The Protest A&E Facebook page got over a million hits in mere hours after it was posted. Electronic submission is really easy. So let's say maybe 200 people agree with every 1 person who showed up to like that page. There's a rule of thumb in politics that for every phone call a politican receives, they assume that there's something like 3,000 people who feel the same way. Phone calls are relatively easy so we can expand on that number for some type of contact, indication or protest that is more difficult for citizens to pull off. This brings me to

#3: All across the country at the Chic Fil A protest, supporting the CEOs right to free speech to object to gay marriage [an implied rejection of gay marriage in those that showed up]. People didn't just pick up the phone and call their Represntatives. No, they woke up, showered, drove a distance away to stand in line for hours in the heat, only to be told there were only sodas left or some such by the time they reached the counter...all to show how upset/angry/pissed off they were at gays clamping down on democracy. Taking the formula of phone calls of 1/3000, just mulitply the heads you see when you do a Google search on "chic fil a protest" in images by more like 10,000, at least, given the difficulties people had to face in the heat, standing line, the drive, lack of parking and still the tenacity to show up and protest the gay steamroller. Here's just a tiny sample of the many pictures of different Chic Fil As that day that you will find when searching:

As to #4: Harvey Milk marriage or the church of LGBT marriage is most certainly not a settled issue in the US. You may have heard that Utah and Oklahoma are fighting it tooth and nail citing Windsor. You might want to have a read of Windsor when you get a moment to see the gist of how the Court feels about states deciding gay marriage. They said that the state's role in deciding gay marriage was of central relevance to that case. Then they went on to cite Loving v Virginia. Then they went on to say that as of the rendering of the DOMA Opinion, gay marriage was only legal "in some states".

Pretty sure they're not going to walk that one back within a year's time. And you know that if Utah prevails, so will California and all other states where gay marraige was forced upon the governed by judicial activists. And guess what else they said in DOMA? That a state's "unquestioned authority" under the question and context of approving gay marriage, or not, was retroactive to the founding of the country.. As to #4, don't count your usurping of democracy before it hatches.

You called it a "failed attack". Investigations have just begun. So your comment is ignorant.

Looks like around 50 people at the Steroid Chicken place. FAIL.

 

[MarcATL]

Silhouette, you can't expect to be taken seriously as a true independent when you use partisan talking points.

For instance, labeling something as an "attack" when it's clearly not.

BTW, define attack for me please.

Again, if you use partisan rhetoric on any issue, you can expect to be called a partisan.

At this point, you seem pretty RW based on what you've been posting.

I'll keep my eye on you, as I do to any one that adamantly claim to be independent.

However, most on USMB who's made that claim are pretty damn RW.

Let's see where this goes.

 

[thanatos144]

This is pure bubble thinking.

#1- the "attack" on Christie has not failed. There are multiple investigations that will be going on for months.

#2 - a tiny percentage of people in this country watch Duck Dynasty. Many more watch SpongeBob Squarepants. Only in Right-Wing Bubble World do these "characters" have any relevance to anything.

#3 - Chik-Fil-A. Another tiny percentage of Americans give a shit. Whoop dee do!

#4 - Marriage equality is pretty much a settled issue with the majority of the country supporting it. Even reddest of all red states Utah is split evenly.

Your victimization schtick doesn't play in Peoria any longer.

As to #1: Thanks for indicating that "something" "has not failed". If not an attack, then what is it that hasn't failed yet? hmm?

As to #2: The Protest A&E Facebook page got over a million hits in mere hours after it was posted. Electronic submission is really easy. So let's say maybe 200 people agree with every 1 person who showed up to like that page. There's a rule of thumb in politics that for every phone call a politican receives, they assume that there's something like 3,000 people who feel the same way. Phone calls are relatively easy so we can expand on that number for some type of contact, indication or protest that is more difficult for citizens to pull off. This brings me to

#3: All across the country at the Chic Fil A protest, supporting the CEOs right to free speech to object to gay marriage [an implied rejection of gay marriage in those that showed up]. People didn't just pick up the phone and call their Represntatives. No, they woke up, showered, drove a distance away to stand in line for hours in the heat, only to be told there were only sodas left or some such by the time they reached the counter...all to show how upset/angry/pissed off they were at gays clamping down on democracy. Taking the formula of phone calls of 1/3000, just mulitply the heads you see when you do a Google search on "chic fil a protest" in images by more like 10,000, at least, given the difficulties people had to face in the heat, standing line, the drive, lack of parking and still the tenacity to show up and protest the gay steamroller. Here's just a tiny sample of the many pictures of different Chic Fil As that day that you will find when searching:

As to #4: Harvey Milk marriage or the church of LGBT marriage is most certainly not a settled issue in the US. You may have heard that Utah and Oklahoma are fighting it tooth and nail citing Windsor. You might want to have a read of Windsor when you get a moment to see the gist of how the Court feels about states deciding gay marriage. They said that the state's role in deciding gay marriage was of central relevance to that case. Then they went on to cite Loving v Virginia. Then they went on to say that as of the rendering of the DOMA Opinion, gay marriage was only legal "in some states".

Pretty sure they're not going to walk that one back within a year's time. And you know that if Utah prevails, so will California and all other states where gay marraige was forced upon the governed by judicial activists. And guess what else they said in DOMA? That a state's "unquestioned authority" under the question and context of approving gay marriage, or not, was retroactive to the founding of the country.. As to #4, don't count your usurping of democracy before it hatches.

You called it a "failed attack". Investigations have just begun. So your comment is ignorant.

Looks like around 50 people at the Steroid Chicken place. FAIL.

awww look at you trying to act indignant LOL

 

[thanatos144]

Silhouette, you can't expect to be taken seriously as a true independent when you use partisan talking points.

For instance, labeling something as an "attack" when it's clearly not.

BTW, define attack for me please.

Again, if you use partisan rhetoric on any issue, you can expect to be called a partisan.

At this point, you seem pretty RW based on what you've been posting.

I'll keep my eye on you, as I do to any one that adamantly claim to be independent.

However, most on USMB who's made that claim are pretty damn RW.

Let's see where this goes.

Most conservative are not like you. We dont need to lie to follow a agenda. I feel sad for you that your so stupid that you think GLADD and the Democrats care about your Afrocentric extreme views.

 

[mamooth]

Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well. Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party.

So you're an anti-gay fanatic, and despise Maddow out of simple bigotry. Why didn't you just say that at the start, instead of going on and on with this failed "I'm an independent!" charade?

 

[thanatos144]

Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well. Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party.

So you're an anti-gay fanatic, and despise Maddow out of simple bigotry. Why didn't you just say that at the start, instead of going on and on with this failed "I'm an independent!" charade?

Only a fucking retard thinks not capitulating to thug like tactics is anti anything other them anti thug....Oh shit look who I am quoting...Tell me do you lick windows because they taste like clear?

 

[Silhouette]

Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well. Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party.

So you're an anti-gay fanatic, and despise Maddow out of simple bigotry. Why didn't you just say that at the start, instead of going on and on with this failed "I'm an independent!" charade?

Actually if you scroll back I said Maddow is a good journalist when it comes to anything but gay really. I especially like how she keeps her eye on the fracking situation and nuclear power plants. I'd like it if some network had a 24 hour feed on the very latest of those two horrible mistakes of humanity.

Maddow just has assumed a the role of prosecutor, judge and executioner of people she targets like Christie. She is pre-emptively destroying careers without the jury coming back in yet. And I think she does it because she knows who will support gay stuff once Obama is out. I think she intuits, being smart, that Christie will put the kaibosh on the gay agenda the minute his hand lowers at the swearing in.

I'm not an independent. I'm a democrat. I've never voted independent in my life.

 

[MarcATL]

Silhouette, you can't expect to be taken seriously as a true independent when you use partisan talking points.

For instance, labeling something as an "attack" when it's clearly not.

BTW, define attack for me please.

Again, if you use partisan rhetoric on any issue, you can expect to be called a partisan.

At this point, you seem pretty RW based on what you've been posting.

I'll keep my eye on you, as I do to any one that adamantly claim to be independent.

However, most on USMB who's made that claim are pretty damn RW.

Let's see where this goes.

Most conservative are not like you. We dont need to lie to follow a agenda. I feel sad for you that your so stupid that you think GLADD and the Democrats care about your Afrocentric extreme views.

Can you tell me what one of my Afrocentic extreme views is?

 

[thanatos144]

Silhouette, you can't expect to be taken seriously as a true independent when you use partisan talking points.

For instance, labeling something as an "attack" when it's clearly not.

BTW, define attack for me please.

Again, if you use partisan rhetoric on any issue, you can expect to be called a partisan.

At this point, you seem pretty RW based on what you've been posting.

I'll keep my eye on you, as I do to any one that adamantly claim to be independent.

However, most on USMB who's made that claim are pretty damn RW.

Let's see where this goes.

Most conservative are not like you. We dont need to lie to follow a agenda. I feel sad for you that your so stupid that you think GLADD and the Democrats care about your Afrocentric extreme views.

Can you tell me what one of my Afrocentic extreme views is?

Lol all of them are you racist

tapatalk post