Dumb things liberals say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

How is Mr. Obama less fit to be in the White House than Mr. McCain or Mr. Romney was?

---

No you're right, clearly the only reason is because he's black. Thanks for educating me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Why would anyone consider that people would vote for Mr. Obama because he's black without considering that many people voted for Mr. Romney because he's white? When one says "person X only got where they are because they played "the race card" to get there", one is diminishing the achievements of this person.

---

You mean sort of how saying Republicans only get elected because everyone who votes for them are a bunch of racist whites is diminishing the achievements of the person who got elected? Great. Stop being racist and diminishing the achievements of white people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

How is he less deserving to be where he is?

---

I already agreed with you that obviously people who say Obama shouldn't be president are just racists. Move on man. You won that argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

I'm not sure how you conflate the two here.

---

Really? Please just stop and admit you were wrong. The power of Christ compels you.

PK = Blacks were not the only one to suffer from slavery issues
WB = PK is a racist because only blacks suffered from a legacy of slavery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I didn't say that Obama played the race card. I said he got a lot of "white guilt" votes. If you don't know the difference, then you're even dumbed than I originally thought.

---

I'm just going to take a moment to appreciate this last part right here.

I mean, if you're going to ad hominem about intelligence, you'd think you could at least say I'm "dumber" instead of saying I'm "dumbed".

And no, you said that Mr. Obama won both because of the "race card" and because of "white guilt". It wasn't an either/or.

Quote:

---

I've heard tons of people (most of them black, but not all lf them) call into shows or have seem numerous clips of them specifically saying that they voted for Obama just because he's black. That must be less racist though, right?

---

And there were an explosion of tweets about how "that monkey" or "that n-word" won and the country was going to hell after Mr. Obama won his second election. You're going to say that those people weren't voting for Mr. Romney out of racism?

See, I can bring up anecdotes too.

Quote:

---

They haven't had much luck winning the presidential nomination. However, when it comes to winning and losing presidential elections, they're batting 1000. Well technically .500, because Obama is only half black.

---

Yeah, who would have thought that after two terms of Mr. Bush people were ready to give the Democrats a turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

I'm new, but so far they're not the stupid ones around here.


Dude, there's no way Mr. Obama is a radical left-winger.

---

You're funny.

Quote:

---

do you assume that people are voting Democrat because of the race of their candidate?

---

Because I've heard lots of them proud admit to it. I'm not claiming that all, or even most of his votes came from those people. The rest of the people that voted for him are just morons.

Quote:

---

Dude, from what I've seen your posts are pretty racist.

---

Feel free to back up that claim with quotes and not be like WB.

Quote:

---

The post I initially quoted had you diminishing the contributions of black people

---

Again, quote the exact statement(s).

Quote:

---

stereotypes (which, by the way are totally fucking racist when they're racial stereotypes)

---

I guess that means that almost every minority comedian is a racist then, even when they're making stereotypes about their own race, right?

Racism is the belief that a certain race(s) is inferior or superior solely based on their race as opposed to the kind of person they are. Stereotypes are usually rooted in truths to some extent, but has nothing to do with a belief that said race is superior or inferior because they're a member of that race. A Korean being stereotyped as a badass at Starcraft (and math), black guys having giant dicks, or an Italian being stereotyped as being in the mafia or cooking a great spaghetti. Which by the way, my grandmothers, both of who were Italian, did indeed make the best spaghetti ever. I'm totally racist against myself for that stereotype. Those stereotypes didn't just come about for no reason out of thin air.

Quote:

---

Also, nice ableist language there too.

---

I'm sorry I hurt your fragile little politically correct feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

No you're right, clearly the only reason is because he's black. Thanks for educating me.

---

Then why bring up his race?

Quote:

---

You mean sort of how saying Republicans only get elected because everyone who votes for them are a bunch of racist whites is diminishing the achievements of the person who got elected? Great. Stop being racist and diminishing the achievements of white people.

---

That wasn't what I said, but thanks for trying.

Quote:

---

I already agreed with you that obviously people who say Obama shouldn't be president are just racists. Move on man. You won that argument.

---

Alright then. Why are you arguing the earlier parts then?

Quote:

---

Really? Please just stop and admit you were wrong. The power of Christ compels you.

---

I'm not wrong.

And what Christ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

I'm just going to take a moment to appreciate this last part right here.

I mean, if you're going to ad hominem about intelligence, you'd think you could at least say I'm "dumber" instead of saying I'm "dumbed".

---

Nice catch on an obvious typo. You win this thread. We can all stop posting now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Then why bring up his race?

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

That wasn't what I said, but thanks for trying.

---

Pretty sure I quoted you saying exactly that. If you are having trouble understanding your own posts I know some very well educated clergymen who can assist you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

I'm not wrong.

---

Except that you are.

You: Disagreeing with Obama doesn't automatically make one a racist.
Methais: Obama shouldn't have won but won because of white guilt.
You: Methais is saying Obama shouldn't be president, he's saying this because Obama is black.
Me: You're saying Methais disagrees with Obama because he's racist.
You: You're twisting my words!

Did I sum up our conversation pretty well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

And what Christ?

---

The one in heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

You're funny.

---

The joke is on the American people who believe any of their candidates are anything but moderates. Please c.f. xkcd's Joe Biden eating sandwiches comic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

The one in heaven.

---

Denying the immanence of Christ, eh? Excommunicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Where did he post that? Try quoting the actual post instead of making shit up.

It's funny because you called him an intellectual coward.. yet you haven't come close to actually quoting him and only attack him for things he hasn't posted.

---

You ask why and question why people post things all the time. You're hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Who is this token black guy you speak of that wants to make the lives of black people worse?

Your grasping for straws to this point of ridiculousness to try and paint me as some evil racist is just laughable now.

---

Both Allen Keyes and Herman Cain would.

Keep on complaining about black people and thinking you're not racist. I imagine it's comforting to have somebody to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

PK = Blacks were not the only one to suffer from slavery issues
WB = PK is a racist because only blacks suffered from a legacy of slavery

---

No. I suggested that tossing out "other people were slaves too!" to minimize what black people experienced or tell them not to complain was ridiculous.

And I still haven't heard from PK or PB what great other reasons exist for posting that which will show me how wrong I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Pretty sure I quoted you saying exactly that. If you are having trouble understanding your own posts I know some very well educated clergymen who can assist you.

---

Pretty sure you might want to brush up on that reading comprehension because that's not what I said.

Quote:

---

Except that you are.

You: Disagreeing with Obama doesn't automatically make one a racist.
Methais: Obama shouldn't have won but won because of white guilt.
You: Methais is saying Obama shouldn't be president, he's saying this because Obama is black.
Me: You're saying Methais disagrees with Obama because he's racist.
You: You're twisting my words!

---

No, Methias is saying that Mr. Obama only won because of "white guilt" and "playing the race card". That is racist and that is not the same as disagreeing with Mr. Obama or his policies. These are two very different things and if you can't see that then well, I really don't know how you get through life.

Quote:

---

Did I sum up our conversation pretty well?

---

Nope. You did help clear up why we're having issues though. Apparently you have issues comprehending very simple ideas. Alternately, you are playing dumb.

Quote:

---

The one in heaven.

---

Ah, that magical place that doesn't exist. Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

You ask why and question why people post things all the time. You're hilarious.

---

I question why you constantly create quotes of people that they never said...

but I've been doing that for years... it's just something you feel the need to do I guess.

You're not hilarious.. you're sad.

You're not an intellectual coward... because you are missing the intellectual part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

No. I suggested that tossing out "other people were slaves too!" to minimize what black people experienced or tell them not to complain was ridiculous.

---

I underlined the part of your suggestion that was never suggested... unless you somehow know what motivates pk to post anything via ESP.

Quote:

---

And I still haven't heard from PK or PB what great other reasons exist for posting that which will show me how wrong I am.

---

LOL.

Now you want me to assume I know why PK would post something? Wouldn't that be almost as retarded as what you did?

You're a real piece of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

considering that many people voted for Mr. Romney because he's white? When one says "person X only got where they are because they played "the race card" to get there", one is diminishing the achievements of this person.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Stop being racist and diminishing the achievements of white people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

that's not what I said.

---

Right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

No, Methias is saying that Mr. Obama only won because of "white guilt" and "playing the race card". That is racist and that is not the same as disagreeing with Mr. Obama or his policies.

---

Yes. Methias is saying Obama is a shitty politician and only won because of white guilt. Methias is disagreeing with Obama on just about every single policy. I'd draw you a stick figure diagram but I have a feeling that would just make things worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Nope. You did help clear up why we're having issues though. Apparently you have issues comprehending very simple ideas. Alternately, you are playing dumb.

---

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new king of the back peddle and changing very very recent history even though it's recorded for all to see. WB, I'm going to need you to hand over your crown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Ah, that magical place that doesn't exist. Gotcha.

---

How do you know it doesn't exist? Have you proven it? The Bible has already proved the existence of Heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I underlined the part of your suggestion that was never suggested... unless you somehow know what motivates pk to post anything via ESP.



LOL.

Now you want me to assume I know why PK would post something? Wouldn't that be almost as retarded as what you did?

You're a real piece of work.

---

If I believed you never ever think about why anybody would say anything I guess I could understand your point of view.

I just don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Right.

---

Out of context quotes are amazing, aren't they? I like how you start mid-sentence instead of doing the honest thing and including the part where I ask "How come you don't consider..." when I was highlighting Methias's hypocrisy in this situation. Good job on the dishonest quoting though.

Quote:

---

Yes. Methias is saying Obama is a shitty politician and only won because of white guilt. Methias is disagreeing with Obama on just about every single policy. I'd draw you a stick figure diagram but I have a feeling that would just make things worse.

---

Methias disagrees with Mr. Obama, that's fine. Saying that he only got elected because of "white guilt" is easily negated by the fact that a lot of other people agree with Mr. Obama and his policies. A large number of people were going to vote for Mr. Obama because his policies resonate with them, just like a large number of people were not going to vote for Mr. Obama because his policies did not appeal to them. Mr. Obama being black does not have much at all to do with the fact that he got elected and actually seems to have worked against him in a lot of cases (e.g. see the very real instances of blatant post-election racism).
The USA is not the dictatorship of Methias where everyone who is ever elected will agree with him on everything (or maybe even anything at all). That doesn't make him a bad politician and that doesn't mean that he only got elected because white people felt guilty and black people are racists who only vote for their own kind.

Quote:

---

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new king of the back peddle and changing very very recent history even though it's recorded for all to see. WB, I'm going to need you to hand over your crown.

---

Haha. Clarifying the situation because you cannot read and comprehend very simple ideas does not constitute back peddling. Nice try though.

Quote:

---

How do you know it doesn't exist? Have you proven it? The Bible has already proved the existence of Heaven.

---

1. Can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is totally on you (and before you try asserting that I started this line of discussion, note that you're the first one to invoke any sort of supernatural entity).
2. The Bible has "proven" that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud and that the entire Earth was flooded at some point and all of these are wrong. You'll excuse me if I don't take a bronze-age text seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Out of context quotes are amazing, aren't they?

---

Out of context? You're amazing kid. Did you say people voted for McCain based on the color of his skin? The answer is yes. Did you also say that saying someone won based on the color of their skin diminishes that person's accomplishments? Yes. Are you now trying to say you didn't really say that? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

1. Can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is totally on you (and before you try asserting that I started this line of discussion, note that you're the first one to invoke any sort of supernatural entity).
2. The Bible has "proven" that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud and that the entire Earth was flooded at some point and all of these are wrong. You'll excuse me if I don't take a bronze-age text seriously.

---

Hey! The Earth DID flood! Fact. Do you think they would allow the Bible to keep being printed today if it wasn't full of truths? This isn't a world of fiction, sir, this is a world of non-fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

If I believed you never ever think about why anybody would say anything I guess I could understand your point of view.

I just don't.

---

Think about.. sure.

Proclaim it to be "fact" and then continue to create quotes to back up that "fact"... no, I'm not retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

2. The Bible has "proven" that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud and that the entire Earth was flooded at some point and all of these are wrong. You'll excuse me if I don't take a bronze-age text seriously.

---

You might want to brush up on "How the Earth Was Made".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Out of context? You're amazing kid. Did you say people voted for McCain based on the color of his skin? The answer is yes. Did you also say that saying someone won based on the color of their skin diminishes that person's accomplishments? Yes. Are you now trying to say you didn't really say that? Yes.

---

No, I asked why Methias was insisting that people voted for Mr. Obama based on the colour of his skin instead of agreeing with his policies when he is not insisting that the same could just as easily be true for his opponents. Again, you miss things when you cut in mid-sentence.

Again, nice try.

Quote:

---

Hey! The Earth DID flood! Fact. Do you think they would allow the Bible to keep being printed today if it wasn't full of truths? This isn't a world of fiction, sir, this is a world of non-fiction.

---

There is no evidence for a global flood during human history that covered the highest mountains. Such a flood would not only interrupt archaeological sites around the world, introducing a huge discontinuity that we do not observe. In addition, there is no way to explain the present spread of animal and plant life in a recent flood scenario, nor is there any evidence in the geological record (e.g. a global layer of sediment that's all the same age) to support an event like this.

There is evidence that the Black Sea flooded in human history and that the Biblical flood story is heavily borrowed from the Babylonian flood story which may have been inspired by this event. When your only means of conveyance are convoys of donkeys, an area the size of the Black Sea may seem like "the entire world" to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

You might want to brush up on "How the Earth Was Made".

---

Oh, I know all about star formation and the current theories on planet formation. That has nothing at all to do with the Bible though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

In addition, there is no way to explain the present spread of animal and plant life in a recent flood scenario

---

Sure if you just totally ignore the fact that Noah put two of every animal on a giant ark then yes, there is no way to explain this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Oh, I know all about star formation and the current theories on planet formation. That has nothing at all to do with the Bible though.

---

I'm sure.

Just wanted to point out the major flaw in your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

You ask why and question why people post things all the time. You're hilarious.

---

He said where, not why. Learn to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Both Allen Keyes and Herman Cain would.

Keep on complaining about black people and thinking you're not racist. I imagine it's comforting to have somebody to blame.

---

Where (not to be confused with why) did I mention Allen Keyes?

Allen West != Allen Keyes

Again, learn to fucking read, Jesus Christ. The density of your skull is even more than that of which George McFly is to Lorraine Baines.

Quote:

---

Keep on complaining about black people and thinking you're not racist. I imagine it's comforting to have somebody to blame.

---

Yeah, because I'm totally complaining about the entire race of black people, and not just the ones that have this bullshit sense of entitlement because of morons like you encouraging them to hate the white people that are alive today because some of those white peoples' ancestors enslaved some of those black peoples' ancestors.

This guy must be both racist and wanting to keep the black man down like you claim Herman Caine and Allen Keyes (not to be confused with Allen West) are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCul2D8bog8

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that he didn't vote for Obama either. What a fucking racist he must be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Sure if you just totally ignore the fact that Noah put two of every animal on a giant ark then yes, there is no way to explain this.

---

Uh, no, it really doesn't. Ok, so let's start with the fact that at anatomically modern humans have existed for less than half a million years. People haven't been keeping written records that long and oral histories certainly don't go back that far, but let's assume that the flood happened this early because it gives us the most time (aka this is as believable as the flood is going to get).

So first of all, you have an issue where a lot of animals are really slow. How is a sloth going to migrate from the middle east to South America in 400,000 years? There's no way it can travel that fast. Moreover, why would a sloth migrate that far? All the plants would have been wiped out by the flood and the only person who saved some plant seeds is right there. All the food in the world it could possibly eat is right next to the Ark so why would the sloths leave?

You also have an issue where different animals exist in different places. Marsupials are found almost exclusively in Australia and New Zealand. Flightless birds such as the kiwi and emu are only found in New Zealand, etc. Why would the marsupials not stay in the Middle East? Why would they (almost) all go to Oceania?

How do you explain the differences between the Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys? Why would monkeys with very particular traits migrate all the way over to the Americas while some other monkeys would stay much closer to home? In 400,000 years they don't have enough time to diverge and become as different as they are.

I mean, there's still the issue that there's significant fossil evidence that the ancestors to the kangaroo have been in Australia for millions of years or that the ancestors to the sloths have been in the Americas for much longer than people have existed on this planet and that there is a very neat and tidy explanation for the genetic variation and evolutionary branching of the various monkey species which correlates nicely with their geographic distrbution.

Nevermind that you only picked one of my points to argue with, which suggests that you can't counter the others at all (not that this was much of a counter argument).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I'm sure.

Just wanted to point out the major flaw in your argument.

---

What flaw? The Biblical stories of creation don't have anything to do with how the Solar System actually formed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

What flaw? The Biblical stories of creation don't have anything to do with how the Solar System actually formed.

---

Fact: Your quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

The Bible has "proven" that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud and that the entire Earth was flooded at some point and all of these are wrong.

---

Fact: The earth was flooded at some point in it's 4.5 billion year history.

Your argument had a flaw in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Uh, no, it really doesn't. Ok, so let's start with the fact that at anatomically modern humans have existed for less than half a million years. People haven't been keeping written records that long and oral histories certainly don't go back that far, but let's assume that the flood happened this early because it gives us the most time (aka this is as believable as the flood is going to get).

So first of all, you have an issue where a lot of animals are really slow. How is a sloth going to migrate from the middle east to South America in 400,000 years? There's no way it can travel that fast. Moreover, why would a sloth migrate that far? All the plants would have been wiped out by the flood and the only person who saved some plant seeds is right there. All the food in the world it could possibly eat is right next to the Ark so why would the sloths leave?

You also have an issue where different animals exist in different places. Marsupials are found almost exclusively in Australia and New Zealand. Flightless birds such as the kiwi and emu are only found in New Zealand, etc. Why would the marsupials not stay in the Middle East? Why would they (almost) all go to Oceania?

How do you explain the differences between the Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys? Why would monkeys with very particular traits migrate all the way over to the Americas while some other monkeys would stay much closer to home? In 400,000 years they don't have enough time to diverge and become as different as they are.

I mean, there's still the issue that there's significant fossil evidence that the ancestors to the kangaroo have been in Australia for millions of years or that the ancestors to the sloths have been in the Americas for much longer than people have existed on this planet and that there is a very neat and tidy explanation for the genetic variation and evolutionary branching of the various monkey species which correlates nicely with their geographic distrbution.

Nevermind that you only picked one of my points to argue with, which suggests that you can't counter the others at all (not that this was much of a counter argument).

---

Terrence isn't actually a thumper du Biblé, he's just messing with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

Uh, no, it really doesn't. Ok, so let's start with the fact that at anatomically modern humans have existed for less than half a million years. People haven't been keeping written records that long and oral histories certainly don't go back that far, but let's assume that the flood happened this early because it gives us the most time (aka this is as believable as the flood is going to get).

So first of all, you have an issue where a lot of animals are really slow. How is a sloth going to migrate from the middle east to South America in 400,000 years? There's no way it can travel that fast. Moreover, why would a sloth migrate that far? All the plants would have been wiped out by the flood and the only person who saved some plant seeds is right there. All the food in the world it could possibly eat is right next to the Ark so why would the sloths leave?

You also have an issue where different animals exist in different places. Marsupials are found almost exclusively in Australia and New Zealand. Flightless birds such as the kiwi and emu are only found in New Zealand, etc. Why would the marsupials not stay in the Middle East? Why would they (almost) all go to Oceania?

How do you explain the differences between the Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys? Why would monkeys with very particular traits migrate all the way over to the Americas while some other monkeys would stay much closer to home? In 400,000 years they don't have enough time to diverge and become as different as they are.

I mean, there's still the issue that there's significant fossil evidence that the ancestors to the kangaroo have been in Australia for millions of years or that the ancestors to the sloths have been in the Americas for much longer than people have existed on this planet and that there is a very neat and tidy explanation for the genetic variation and evolutionary branching of the various monkey species which correlates nicely with their geographic distrbution.

Nevermind that you only picked one of my points to argue with, which suggests that you can't counter the others at all (not that this was much of a counter argument).

---

You're asking why animals migrated all over the world after the flood? Because of dinosaurs! I'd migrate half way across the world too if I was constantly being chased by dinosaurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Fact: Your quote:


Fact: The earth was flooded at some point in it's 4.5 billion year history.

Your argument had a flaw in it.

---

If you count "flooded with lava" then yes, the world has "flooded". No humans were around to witness this event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Terrence isn't actually a thumper du Biblé, he's just messing with you.

---

Ah, fair enough. I've not been here long enough to know who's crazy and who isn't. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Yeah, because I'm totally complaining about the entire race of black people, and not just the ones that have this bullshit sense of entitlement because of morons like you encouraging them to hate the white people that are alive today because some of those white peoples' ancestors enslaved some of those black peoples' ancestors.

---

An actual post part of your post. I'm impressed. I imagine the Invisible Democratic Party is actually engaged in making black people feel entitled and hate white people.

And you suggest I make stuff up? Wow. I'm glad you're finally posting your actual thoughts now.

The rest of us think that maybe there's actual racism in the world that we might want to address. Rather than deifying people who don't want to give anything to anybody and denying that everybody contributes to commercial success, we think that maybe some people might need help and good things might result from it.

All this reminds me of a bit from the Daily Show

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Daily Show

"I couldn’t have written [The Casual Vacancy] if I’d not had a few years really where I was as poor as it’s possible to go in the UK without being homeless," said Rowling.

She also explained that her commitment to paying tax in the UK comes from the time that she herself was on welfare.

"Has a government ever got more back from an investment?" asked Stewart.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakini

If you count "flooded with lava" then yes, the world has "flooded". No humans were around to witness this event.

---

Incorrect.

Like I said originally.. brush up on "How the Earth Was Made".

And there were no humans around to witness the Dinosaurs either.. but we know they were here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

An actual post part of your post. I'm impressed. I imagine the Invisible Democratic Party is actually engaged in making black people feel entitled and hate white people.

And you suggest I make stuff up? Wow. I'm glad you're finally posting your actual thoughts now.

The rest of us think that maybe there's actual racism in the world that we might want to address. Rather than deifying people who don't want to give anything to anybody and denying that everybody contributes to commercial success, we think that maybe some people might need help and good things might result from it.

All this reminds me of a bit from the Daily Show

---

I never said there wasn't racism still going on in the world. But it's nowhere near the extent that you people make it out to be, at least in America. There isn't much of anything that the left doesn't try to blame on racism when someone disagrees with them. The sad part is people like you believe it's a legit claim, and that only white people can be racist. White republicans, not at least white non-liberals to be exact, 99% of the time.

A lot of people do legitimately need help. A lot more abuse the shit out of the system, and both instances include people from all races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

You're asking why animals migrated all over the world after the flood? Because of dinosaurs! I'd migrate half way across the world too if I was constantly being chased by dinosaurs.

---

That's because you're not Jeff Goldblum.

Show me one instance that anyone has called anyone racist because they disagreed with the other person's political views.

Meth, you had a little rant yesterday in this thread that sounded pretty racist. You know, racism is something that while not being a desirable trait it is understandable where it comes from and what it really is. Obviously we all like to be treated with dignity and respect. Thats common across all people of all races and all cultures. The more we look for commonalities, have sympathy for shared experiences, and lighten up about our differences the less adverse our communities will be. Shared mutual respect regardless of our differences is a lofty goal. It takes work, education, understanding, patience, and generosity from everyone involved.

Racism isn't the worst trait for a person to have. Tolerance is a great trait for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I never said there wasn't racism still going on in the world. But it's nowhere near the extent that you people make it out to be, at least in America. There isn't much of anything that the left doesn't try to blame on racism when someone disagrees with them. The sad part is people like you believe it's a legit claim, and that only white people can be racist. White republicans to be exact, 99% of the time.

A lot of people do legitimately need help. A lot more abuse the shit out of the system, and both instances include people from all races.

---

It's very easy to claim that it doesn't exist when you're white and relatively comfortable.

Truth is, it's all over. On an almost daily basis I hear black people complaining about Mexicans and Arabs, listen to Asians hating on other varieties of Asians, watch a black man in a position of power fail to be able to distinguish between his living white clients and his one dead one (that he constantly forgets is dead), hear white men blame their problems on black people, hear white men complain that Hispanics are stealing their jobs (while they're too lazy to get off their asses and look), hear an Indian guy be an ass to an Afghani, see that same Afghani become a racist self parody, and everybody involved likes to think that it's only somebody else who does it.

Personally I think xenophobia against Hispanics is far more of a problem for the Republican Party than racism against black people.

I don't blame much on racism. I comment on it when I see it or observe it though.

As for what I blame Republican actions on? I blame the fact that the Republicans have people like you convinced they need to act against their own economic interests. I blame the fact that Republicans want to destroy the ability for the government to be successful to encourage profiteering and unfettered capitalism. It's slash and spend elsewhere statecraft.

I understand that in your mind the Invisible Democratic Party totally blames everything on racism and that only white Republicans can be racist. I live in the world though. There's racism all over.

I believe more people need help than abuse the system. I certainly do believe they exist, though, and I think it is one of the things (apart from the last Republican President to cut spending being over 50 years ago) that makes the Republican Party pathetic that they had the chance to make a national ID card to address much of this fraud when they controlled the Presidency and Congress and they never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Tolerance is a great trait for everyone.

---

Show me one case of tolerance in the Bible that ended up well for the person being tolerant. Take Jesus for example, the guy was about as tolerant as they come and look what happened to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Show me one case of tolerance in the Bible that ended up well for the person being tolerant. Take Jesus for example, the guy was about as tolerant as they come and look what happened to him.

---

You aren't making much sense these days. Everything ok? Has your diet changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

You aren't making much sense these days. Everything ok? Has your diet changed?

---

Stop deflecting and answer the question!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Show me one instance that anyone has called anyone racist because they disagreed with the other person's political views.

Meth, you had a little rant yesterday in this thread that sounded pretty racist.

---

Only to people like you who wanted to make it into something it wasn't.

I've already tried breaking down that post into simple terms for you and WB to be able to comprehend twice now, and neither of you have the brain power to process it. I'm not going to do it a third time.

Though I suspect your problem is because I implied that Coming to America might not have ever been made is slavery never took place.

Why do you hate Soul Glo so much? Why do you hate two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions, on a non-sesame seed bun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I never said there wasn't racism still going on in the world. But it's nowhere near the extent that you people make it out to be, at least in America.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It's very easy to claim that it doesn't exist when you're white and relatively comfortable.

---

You prove more and more with every post that you really don't know how to read.

Quote:

---

I blame the fact that Republicans want to destroy the ability for the government to be successful

---

So you really are one of those people that believe that the government is the solution to all of our problems?

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/face...7baf3-2694.gif

You know who the real racists are?

CAPCOM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSKZgEnbYI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Show me one case of tolerance in the Bible that ended up well for the person being tolerant. Take Jesus for example, the guy was about as tolerant as they come and look what happened to him.

---

There are multiple documented cases of Jesus' anti-Semitism. Chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

There are multiple documented cases of Jesus' anti-Semitism. Chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad.

---

Jesus was a Jew himself therefore he wasn't being anti-Semitic, he was owning those words and making them his own.

Tell it to the Sanhedrin, pal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

You prove more and more with every post that you really don't know how to read.

So you really are one of those people that believe that the government is the solution to all of our problems?

---

I don't have any reading comprehension problems. You suggested that racism had "nowhere near the extent that you people make it out to be, at least in America." I think it's all over. There's a difference in degree there, thus I suggest it's "easy to claim it doesn't exist" because you suggest that there's "nowhere near the extent that you people make it out to be" when I think there's rather a lot. You're literally suggesting that the level of racism I believe occurs does not occur. Thus you're claiming that the racism I suggest exists does not exist. I don't know if I can make that one any simpler.

I know you'd like it if I thought the government was the solution to all our problems. I don't think it is.

I just think private enterprise is not sufficient to help everyone and sometimes leaving things it to it is like leaving the fox to guard the chickenhouse, whether it is done by Democrats or Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I don't have any reading comprehension problems. You suggested that racism had "nowhere near the extent that you people make it out to be, at least in America." I think it's all over. There's a difference in degree there, thus I suggest it's "easy to claim it doesn't exist" because you suggest that there's "nowhere near the extent that you people make it out to be" when I think there's rather a lot. You're literally suggesting that the level of racism I believe occurs does not occur. Thus you're claiming that the racism I suggest exists does not exist. I don't know if I can make that one any simpler.

---

Sure, that's fair enough. However, that's not what you said earlier. What you said earlier was that I don't think racism exists. You forgot to include the part about "to the extent that I believe it does", therefore the only way your statement could be interpreted is by claiming that I say it doesn't exist at all.

Quote:

---

I just think private enterprise is not sufficient to help everyone and sometimes leaving things it to it is like leaving the fox to guard the chickenhouse, whether it is done by Democrats or Republicans.

---

It's also been proven that just throwing money at the problem hasn't helped either. This is intentional on the part of the government, because they don't want people to get out of the hole they're in. They'd much rather people be dependent on the government to ensure they keep getting their votes.

You used to live in Louisiana. I don't know about how other states work, and yes I realize that this is (overall) a red state, but I'd think it's pretty likely that states all over are like this. Anyway...did you know that if you're enrolled in college, you're ineligible for food stamps? How is that helpful to anyone, forcing them to choose between eating and getting an education so that they won't need food stamps in the future?

I'm sure there are several hundred other examples in any given state that are just as stupid and counter-productive as that.

I think both parties suck. I just think democrats suck more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3VFnbojEyE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Sure, that's fair enough. However, that's not what you said earlier. What you said earlier was that I don't think racism exists. You forgot to include the part about "to the extent that I believe it does", therefore the only way your statement could be interpreted is by claiming that I say it doesn't exist at all.

---

You attribute stuff to people all sorts of times. It's obvious that you do think racism exists, against white people at the very least. The idea that that making claims about folks is somehow forbidden around here is silly.

Quote:

---

It's also been proven that just throwing money at the problem hasn't helped either. This is intentional on the part of the government, because they don't want people to get out of the hole they're in. They'd much rather people be dependent on the government to ensure they keep getting their votes.

You used to live in Louisiana. I don't know about how other states work, and yes I realize that this is (overall) a red state, but I'd think it's pretty likely that states all over are like this. Anyway...did you know that if you're enrolled in college, you're ineligible for food stamps? How is that helpful to anyone, forcing them to choose between eating and getting an education so that they won't need food stamps in the future?

I'm sure there are several hundred other examples in any given state that are just as stupid and counter-productive as that.

I think both parties suck. I just think democrats suck more.

---

I'd love to see some reform to the level that Clinton and Gingrich reformed welfare. It won't happen. Democrats won't touch it and Republicans would rather destroy or make troll bills than any serious efforts. Dialogue just doesn't work lately. It mirrors our folder rather sadly.

I think a proper identification system and nutritional tracking would work wonders. The example you bring serves to illustrate why "states run things!" doesn't always work. In Virginia where we had defunded EEOC offices, people on food stamps were required to go to their district's EEOC office for a while. Stuff like that in some cases can actually be helped by federal control, whether you believe it or not. We just have a non functional executive and legislative, largely. In spite of the sky is falling claims I'd say the most critical bit of Obama 2 and Hillary or Rubio/Paul 1 will be Supreme Court justices.

And now a word from our sponsor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irrwx7ggpXE

"We're talking about millions of kids dying, being shot down by assault weapons" -Charlie "I have to report rental income?" Wrangle.

A couple too many zeros there, Brainiac...

http://d1ovi2g6vebctw.cloudfront.net...03/murders.jpg

For those that still don't get the entire case for gun control.. we're talking about the first pillar in this graph.. the blue one. That will put a dent in the murder rate in the US!

Now I can see why Back wants to ban rifles so much!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Now I can see why Back wants to ban rifles so much!

---

Not all of those murders can be attributed to "assault" rifles. That category includes all rifles, including hunting rifles.. that are not classified as assault rifles.

Obviously you've never heard of the word "compromise".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Obviously you've never heard of the word "compromise".

---

What?

Damn . . . 745 people died in 2010 by being punched to death? That was about 6% of all murders in that entire year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kastrel

Damn . . . 745 people died in 2010 by being punched to death? That was about 6% of all murders in that entire year.

---

Not just punched.. also slapped and kicked to death.

Which is still more than were killed by assault rifles.

Nah, I realized that, was just elaborating on the main point. My interest is entirely unrelated to anything assault rifle related, I'm just surprised at A) the lethality of the unarmed deaths (beatings, I would assume?) and B) the resolve and potentially patience it takes to beat someone to death, and how many times it happened. Effectively, every day of that year there were 2 people who had the willingness to physically punch, kick, etc someone to death, even though it might have taken a while.

I think that demonstrates a level of depravity that is nowhere near as frightening as someone just pulling a trigger. You can regret that later, one moment of lapsed self-control, but with beating, you have to maintain it throughout. Just scary, thats all.

You can kill someone pretty fast with your hands/feet if you really want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kastrel

My interest is entirely unrelated to anything assault rifle related, I'm just surprised at A) the lethality of the unarmed deaths (beatings, I would assume?) and B) the resolve and potentially patience it takes to beat someone to death, and how many times it happened. Effectively, every day of that year there were 2 people who had the willingness to physically punch, kick, etc someone to death, even though it might have taken a while.

---

I'm no doctor but I would imagine a few well placed kicks to the head would kill someone pretty quick, as would bashing their head against a wall or the pavement.

Yeah, I get that. There are situations where hand-to-hand assault can be very rapidly lethal, but that can't account for all of those cases. Seems too . . . convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kastrel

Yeah, I get that. There are situations where hand-to-hand assault can be very rapidly lethal, but that can't account for all of those cases. Seems too . . . convenient.

---

You think there is a conspiracy going on with the murder stats?

No.

I'm saying that when I describe that figure as frightening and people say "hand to hand can be rapidly lethal", it doesn't inspire any confidence in me that this reflects the majority of the deaths. It would be nice if the world worked that way and 100% of those deaths were due to neck-snapping ninjas or well-placed kicks to the head leading to instant deaths, but as I said, that is too convenient (for me). The whole thing that bothered me about that figure was the implication of people using their bare hands (and shoe'd feet?) to kill someone for as long as it took, with the assumption that it is going to take at least a little while, 30 seconds or more. It would be too convenient if that just was never the case.

Yes, there are some sick fucks out there who would knowingly beat a person for over 30 seconds in an effort to kill them.

Thank you for reiterating what I figured out when I made the comment in the first place.

I'm just surprised that you were surprised by that. How long you lived on Earth now? :p

I was surprised by the number in comparison to other methods of death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Obviously you've never heard of the word "compromise".

---

What are you saying we should be compromising?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What are you saying we should be compromising?

---

Finding a middle ground everyone can live with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Finding a middle ground everyone can live with.

---

As little as I want to defend those two, what exactly are the universal background checks plans BUT that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Finding a middle ground everyone can live with.

---

Such as?

Get to the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Obviously you've never heard of the word "compromise".

---

What's that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Get to the point.

---

There is no point other than the obvious, which is what do you think this compromise should consist of?

You're saying we have to find a compromise.

I ask you to give an example.

You tell me to get to the point.

Or are you just saying, "We need to make a compromise even though I have no idea what that should be, I just say it because it makes me feel good!"?

There are two sides to a debate. Both sides need to meet in the middle to form a compromise. Each party gives a little to get what they want. Thats elementary. Thats basic. I would think that would be self explanatory. I forget who I am dealing with here.

I don't even know what this compromise is about.

They first asked you: What are we compromising on? You responded with the definition of a comprimise.

Next they asked: Such as? (or, give an example of said compromise) You responded with "Get to the point"

Finally, Candor asked what a compromise was in Candor fashion, and Methais asked again for you to give an example of such a compromise. Your response, which I can't tell who it was directed at, once again defined a compromise. If you are answering Candor's question, I'm surprised you took his post seriously. If you are answering Methais, then for the third time in a row, you responded to a question with an entirely unrelated answer.

I think they just want to know the nature of said compromise, not its definition. What side A gets and what side B gets. Do you have any ideas?

Again, I don't even know what is being compromised. I just find your last few posts very strange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

There are two sides to a debate. Both sides need to meet in the middle to form a compromise. Each party gives a little to get what they want. Thats elementary. Thats basic. I would think that would be self explanatory. I forget who I am dealing with here.

---

"Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."

AYN RAND

Compromise among discussions of basic principles usually means that the party seeking it realizes they cannot win and seeks to try and get a little bit now and weasel the rest later. It is a win by rot and decay since the fundamental principle is untenable and unpalatable. Compromise can only truly exist where both parties share a common ground of fundamental principles and beliefs and they seek to serve others with the compromise. The slippery slope is a both a logical fallacy and a social, moral and legal reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

"Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."

AYN RAND

Compromise among discussions of basic principles usually means that the party seeking it realizes they cannot win and seeks to try and get a little bit now and weasel the rest later. It is a win by rot and decay since the fundamental principle is untenable and unpalatable. Compromise can only truly exist where both parties share a common ground of fundamental principles and beliefs and they seek to serve others with the compromise. The slippery slope is a both a logical fallacy and a social, moral and legal reality.

---

Except, you know, when she decided to take Social Security. Without compromise we can't govern. Unfortunately Back doesn't get that there already has been compromise offered in this area.

Compromise on the issue of gun safety. There are people who want to get rid of guns entirely. There are people who think there are too many restrictions. Where do we meet in the middle so everyone walks away happy or at least not entirely disappointed?

I think they were asking you the same question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Such as?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

There is no point other than the obvious, which is what do you think this compromise should consist of?

Or are you just saying, "We need to make a compromise even though I have no idea what that should be, I just say it because it makes me feel good!"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Compromise on the issue of gun safety. There are people who want to get rid of guns entirely. There are people who think there are too many restrictions. Where do we meet in the middle......

---

Seems to me like we're already at the middle. Why are we still talking about it?


-Thond

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Such as?

---

You get to keep hating gays, but you don't get to have guns. That's fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

The slippery slope is a both a logical fallacy and a social, moral and legal reality.

---

The slippery slope is only a judicial reality. It has nothing to do with the legal sphere: Congress is allowed to make a law that literally contradicts previous laws if they feel like it (or are comically unaware of the previous law). Same goes for social, obviously, and same goes for moral: have you never heard of ressentiment?

Humans are not logic machines. They are chiefly comprised of thoughts, water, and meat. None of these are acceptable inputs to syllogisms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Except, you know, when she decided to take Social Security. Without compromise we can't govern. Unfortunately Back doesn't get that there already has been compromise offered in this area.

---

Because everyone that extols truths are 100% virtuous and live what they say 100% amirite? Case in point, Catholic priests, politicians and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You get to keep hating gays, but you don't get to have guns. That's fair.

---

Can we swap that? I'd prefer the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You get to keep hating gays, but you don't get to have guns.

---

Don't hate gays, I support same sex marriage. Stop projecting your beliefs.

Quote:

---

That's fair.The slippery slope is only a judicial reality. It has nothing to do with the legal sphere: Congress is allowed to make a law that literally contradicts previous laws if they feel like it (or are comically unaware of the previous law). Same goes for social, obviously, and same goes for moral: have you never heard of ressentiment?

Humans are not logic machines. They are chiefly comprised of thoughts, water, and meat. None of these are acceptable inputs to syllogisms.

---

The procession of legal/social/moral decline by rot and errosion is the slippery slope. Nice attempt at a distraction though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kastrel

Can we swap that? I'd prefer the other way around.

---

Ta-da! Our government's weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass distraction, drones, bombers, hundreds of thousands of highly trained soldiers, and massive technological advantages were just waiting for our citizens to turn in their God damned hand guns and hunting rifles so they could enforce all their wildly repressive programmes including (but by no means limited to!) not hating gays anymore. The Maine was an inside job. Spare Roosevelts.

Alright, mate. Alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

Don't hate gays, I support same sex marriage. Stop projecting your beliefs.

---

If only I had directed that via quote to a specific person who was not you! Curses. Curses! CURSES!!!

Quote:

---

The procession of legal/social/moral decline by rot and errosion is the slippery slope. Nice attempt at a distraction though.

---

Okay. The term "slippery slope" has a specific meaning, I encourage you to investigate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

The term "slippery slope" has a specific meaning, I encourage you to investigate it.

---

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, true.

It is also an idiom. I encourage you to investigate it (yes, it is a stretch to say Rocktar's usage is idiomatic).

C

I absolutely refuse to recognize any idiom that does not reflect exactly the technical meaning. It's like you've never read my posts!!! I am deeply hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

There are two sides to a debate. Both sides need to meet in the middle to form a compromise. Each party gives a little to get what they want. Thats elementary. Thats basic. I would think that would be self explanatory. I forget who I am dealing with here.

---

I'm not asking what a compromise is. I already know its definition.

I'm asking you specifically, what you think this particular compromise should consist of.

Here, try filling in these blanks, and let us know the results:

"Hi, I'm Backlash, and I think we need to come to a compromise on the gun issue. I think that the pro-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise, and that the anti-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I'm not asking what a compromise is. I already know its definition.

I'm asking you specifically, what you think this particular compromise should consist of.

Here, try filling in these blanks, and let us know the results:

"Hi, I'm Backlash, and I think we need to come to a compromise on the gun issue. I think that the pro-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise, and that the anti-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise."

---

You are asking too much of Back.

He has learned to never take a position because he frequently fails to successfully defend (or explain) it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

You are asking too much of Back.

He has learned to never take a position because he frequently fails to successfully defend (or explain) it.

---

Thats absolute bullshit and you know it. I've made my position and arguments on this subject crystal clear probably louder than anyone else on this board. So much so that I really hate to repeat myself out of consideration for not wanting to spam.

There was a thread a little while ago where you dodged just about all my questions so don't even pretend you've got anything to say on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Thats absolute bullshit and you know it. I've made my position and arguments on this subject crystal clear probably louder than anyone else on this board. So much so that I really hate to repeat myself out of consideration for not wanting to spam.

There was a thread a little while ago where you dodged just about all my questions so don't even pretend you've got anything to say on the subject.

---

Does this mean you're not going to fill in the blanks, and just stick to your argument of "We need to compromise! I don't know what either side should do but it makes me feel good to say that!"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Does this mean you're not going to fill in the blanks, and just stick to your argument of "We need to compromise! I don't know what either side should do but it makes me feel good to say that!"?

---

Heres another thing. I'm tired of your endless demands to answer your endless questions.

Back's version of a compromise.

"I know I owe you $1,000 so I'm going to give you $1 and we can call it even."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Heres another thing. I'm tired of your endless demands to answer your endless questions.

---

Is that a no then?

"Hi, I'm Parkbandit, and I think we need to come to a compromise on the gun issue. I think that the pro-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise, and that the anti-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise."

Realize that automatic guns are not necessary for self defense and hunting

Realize that the 2nd amendment is there for our protection and that if you want to infringe more upon our gun rights, that the 2nd amendment should be voted on to be repealed.

Repealing the second amendment isn't a viable alternative for the gun-control crowd. That's why they choose to ignore the Constitution and attempt to create laws that violate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back Rep (most likely)

03-25-2013 12:17 PM
Thread: Dumb things liberals say:
(Red)Yes, it's a no. To you.

---

Is it because you got called out to show that what you post has actual substance and isn't just your usual mindless feel good blabbering based in somewhere other than reality?

Or is it just because you have to always be a (non-homosexual) fag?

Quick, someone else ask Back to fill in the blanks about his gun control compromise mandate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Thats absolute bullshit and you know it. I've made my position and arguments on this subject crystal clear probably louder than anyone else on this board. So much so that I really hate to repeat myself out of consideration for not wanting to spam.

There was a thread a little while ago where you dodged just about all my questions so don't even pretend you've got anything to say on the subject.

---

If you are referring to the Chavez thread, you made quite clear how you decided to ignore everything except what this one person from central America told you, because you are all about formulating your own opinion while denying that contradicting information even exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Is it because you got called out to show that what you post has actual substance and isn't just your usual mindless feel good blabbering based in somewhere other than reality?

Or is it just because you have to always be a (non-homosexual) fag?

Quick, someone else ask Back to fill in the blanks about his gun control compromise mandate.

---

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...gif?1301082881

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

"Hi, I'm Parkbandit, and I think we need to come to a compromise on the gun issue. I think that the pro-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise, and that the anti-gun people should ____________________ as their part of the compromise."

Realize that automatic guns are not necessary for self defense and hunting

Realize that the 2nd amendment is there for our protection and that if you want to infringe more upon our gun rights, that the 2nd amendment should be voted on to be repealed.

---

So you support an assault weapons ban and the only thing you want from the other side is a realization? You're getting soft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...gif?1301082881

---

You're not important enough for me to get mad over. Nice attempt at deflecting being called out for having Internet-Downs though.

Let's try an analogy here:

Backlash: Let's go buy a keg tonight guys.
Backlash's friend: Ok, great idea let's get fucking wasted!
Backlash: Awesome. Let's get a keg of Heineken.
Backlash's friend: Heineken? Fuck that shit! PABST BLUE RIBBON!
Backlash: HEINEKEN!
Backlash's friend: PABST BLUE RIBBON!
Backlash: HEINEKEN!
Backlash's friend: PABST BLUE RIBBON!
Backlash: We need to make a compromise.
Backlash's friend: Ok. What do you suggest?
Backlash: You want Pabst. I want Heineken. We need to come to some sort of middleground.
Backlash's friend: You already said that when you said we need to compromise.
Backlash: Did you know that eating foods high in sodium before passing out while you're drunk can help with the hangover the next day?
Backlash's friend: What the fuck are you talking about? You said we need to compromise on what kind of beer to get, hangovers have nothing to do with it. Now what do you suggest we compromise on the beer?
Backlash: Get to the point.
Backlash's friend: That was the point!
Backlash: There are two sides to a debate. Both sides need to meet in the middle to form a compromise. Each party gives a little to get what they want. Thats elementary. That's basic. I would think that would be self explanatory. I forget who I am dealing with here.
Backlash's friend: You're not going to answer the question are you?
Backlash: Also just as a rule of thumb, if you get an urge to call your ex girlfriend at 3am when you're hammered, it's probably not a good idea.
Backlash's friend: Wtf dude? We're talking about what kind of beer to get and you said we need to compromise. So how about some suggestions, since you came up with this compromise idea?
Backlash: I'm getting real sick of you always demanding endless answers from me with your endless questions.
Backlash's friend:
http://impose.vaesite.net/__data/10-...nch-a-hi.3.png

:lol:

Oh yeah?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ndFJKJ0_Lh...elvet+mnju.gif

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li...5yooo1_500.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Oh yeah?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ndFJKJ0_Lh...elvet+mnju.gif

---

Proof that Back does condone violence afterall!

Next = theE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

Proof that Back does condone violence afterall!

Next = theE

---

You must have missed when he threatened to shoot me in the face with a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

You must have missed when he threatened to shoot me in the face with a gun.

---

You mean he still hasn't gotten rid of his pistol yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashlander

You mean he still hasn't gotten rid of his pistol yet?

---

He won't even compromise on it.

He won't even sell it and give his hard working employees a raise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryvicke

So you support an assault weapons ban and the only thing you want from the other side is a realization? You're getting soft.

---

Re-read it again.

Key words you missed:

Automatic
Repealed.

Have an adult help you if it's still over your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Re-read it again.

Key words you missed:

Automatic
Repealed.

Have an adult help you if it's still over your head.

---

So the compromise is that gun-rights advocates stop asking for legal access to post-1986 automatic weapons and gun-control advocates stop trying to repeal the 2nd amendment? In your world are those two things happening presently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li...5yooo1_500.gif

---

Oh hell naw! Fuckin punk-ass wanna-be tryin to take my move? Kano's not gonna be happy, either.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/246...rip-mk-9-o.gif

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/220...fatality-o.gif

Biden's one night hotel stay in Paris cost almost 600,000 dollars. Not really a dumb thing a liberal said but I figured it belonged here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Biden's one night hotel stay in Paris cost almost 600,000 dollars. Not really a dumb thing a liberal said but I figured it belonged here.

---

I'm sure some dumb liberal will come in to defend it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I'm sure some dumb liberal will come in to defend it.

---

Give Back some time, he has to craft the perfect answer after all. I'm leaning towards "LOL! But Bush was on vacation more days than any president in history!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Let's try an analogy here:

http://impose.vaesite.net/__data/10-...nch-a-hi.3.png

---

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Methais again.

Seriously Backlash, its not spam if they are asking you to answer. They even gave you a fill in the blank form for it.

Humor me and try filling it out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I'm sure some dumb liberal will come in to defend it.

---

Do you know how much it costs to hand wash a Trans Am in Paris?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Do you know how much it costs to hand wash a Trans Am in Paris?

---

Okay Latrin won this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryvicke

So the compromise is that gun-rights advocates stop asking for legal access to post-1986 automatic weapons and gun-control advocates stop trying to repeal the 2nd amendment? In your world are those two things happening presently?

---

So.. you couldn't find an adult.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

So.. you couldn't find an adult.....

---

Explain your opinion again for me, I'm genuinely interested in what Rush Limbaugh thinks is going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryvicke

Explain your opinion again for me, I'm genuinely interested in what Rush Limbaugh thinks is going on.

---

You wouldn't understand it because you didn't hear Barney sing about it.

Some of you might think this is dumb for Jim Carry to say.

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/7w3q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryvicke

Explain your opinion again for me, I'm genuinely interested in what Rush Limbaugh thinks is going on.

---

I am a conservative, and I could care less what Rush Limbaugh thinks. In fact, I wish he would shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Some of you might think this is dumb for Jim Carry to say.

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/7w3q

---

Jim Carry hasn't been funny or relevant since 1994.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryvicke

Explain your opinion again for me, I'm genuinely interested in what Rush Limbaugh thinks is going on.

---

lolololol ur a liberal so tell us what Chris Matthews thinks

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado): "I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available."

Does she think they're banning the manufacturing of bullets or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Does she think they're banning the manufacturing of bullets or something?

---

I'm assuming she doesn't realize that the magazines can be reloaded with fresh bullets.

If you tear all the pages out of a magazine, you can't put those back in. Not even aliens can do that.

It's the time-tested principle of "what's good for the gun is good for the Glamour".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I'm assuming she doesn't realize that the magazines can be reloaded with fresh bullets.

---

I guess nobody told her that unloaded guns can shoot people too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHsX7STHqNg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I guess nobody told her that unloaded guns can shoot people too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHsX7STHqNg

---

Does FOX news dictate how certain people should feel about stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Does FOX news dictate how certain people should feel about stuff?

---

What does Fox News have to do with it?

Wanna play the Bush card too? That has about as much to do with this as Fox does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What does Fox News have to do with it?

Wanna play the Bush card too? That has about as much to do with this as Fox does.

---

DUH! Fox News is responsible for willful ignorance. I know this because Chris Matthews told me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Does FOX news dictate how certain people should feel about stuff?

---

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/a...x328-39094.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What does Fox News have to do with it?

Wanna play the Bush card too? That has about as much to do with this as Fox does.

---

Bush card? Do you have a card for every failed plan? FOX card. Race card. Hate card. How many do you have in your deck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Bush card? Do you have a card for every failed plan? FOX card. Race card. Hate card. How many do you have in your deck?

---

You're the one that played the Fox card in response to a post that had nothing to do with Fox.

Are you hitting the bottle again tonight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

DUH! Fox News is responsible for willful ignorance. I know this because Chris Matthews told me.

---

You guys care about Chris Matthews far more than anybody over here does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

You guys care about Chris Matthews far more than anybody over here does.

---

Chris Matthews is like the Warclaidhm of mainstream media. It's not that we actually care so much as it's like the bad train wreck you can't look away from.

NEW GAME:
If <insert media or political figure, let's start with Rush> were a GS character, who would he be? Or vice versa.

"My job is to make sure we move the country forward, and I think we can best do that if Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House once again," -Barack Obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

Why are you obsessed with Chris Matthews? Who the fuck watches Chris Matthews, or MSNBC at all? If you want a liberal icon, why not Jon Stewart? Stephen Colbert? Even Bill Maher would be a better choice than Chris Matthews.

---

Because I was responding to a post that mentioned him?

Forums are hard.

Also I like how everyone you listed as a liberal icon is a comedian. Let's throw Roseanne in there while we're at it.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, most if not all liberal icons are technically comedians, whether they intend to be or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

You posted Chris Matthews

---

Quote:

---

the other day

---

Quote:

---

Other threads

---

Quote:

---

"Forums are hard."

---

Obviously they're even harder for you than I thought.

I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly. -Barack Obama

Which school shooting involved a machine gun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Which school shooting involved a machine gun?

---

All the ones that involved semiautomatic "assault weapons" that aren't actual machine guns or assault weapons.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tells ABC News: ”It is a terrorist incident. … It could be foreign, it could be homegrown.”

At least we know it wasn't aliens from outer space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tells ABC News: ”It is a terrorist incident. … It could be foreign, it could be homegrown.”

At least we know it wasn't aliens from outer space.

---

There's nothing like an act of terrorism to bring out the real stupidity in liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tells ABC News: ”It is a terrorist incident. … It could be foreign, it could be homegrown.”

At least we know it wasn't aliens from outer space.

---

Well it might be. Aliens would probably qualify as foreign.

http://memecrunch.com/image/4edd0a50...1d64000000.jpg

Dry spell or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Dry spell or what?

---

Must be. I don't see anything stupid about what she said. It's factual isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Must be. I don't see anything stupid about what she said. It's factual isn't it?

---

Wouldn't a bomb automatically make it terrorism?

And she said either the person or person responsible for this act of terrorism is an American.. or not an American.

The motion passes: dry spell.

A recent post on The New Yorker. Obviously this guy is supposedly a satirist. Nothing in his post says that. I find nothing funny about him or his posts at all. To me it looks like straight up falsification. The New Yorker and this guy who works for them get's my "Dumb Things Liberals Say(post)" vote this month.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...an-people.html

Courageous Senators Stand Up to American People

Posted by Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In the halls of the United States Senate, dozens of Senators congratulated themselves today for having what one of them called “the courage and grit to stand up to the overwhelming wishes of the American people.”


“We kept hearing, again and again, that ninety per cent of the American people wanted us to vote a certain way,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). “Well, at the end of the day, we decided that we weren’t going to cave in to that kind of special-interest group.”


“It was a gut check, for sure, but we had to draw a line in the sand,” agreed Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S. Carolina). “If we had voted the way the American people wanted us to, it would have sent the message that we’re here in Washington to be nothing more than their elected representatives.”


Calling yesterday’s Senate action “a bipartisan effort,” Senator Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) said, “This proves that on a matter that affects the safety of every man, woman, and child in the nation, we can reach across the aisle to defy the interests of all of them.”


Senator McConnell agreed that yesterday’s vote “sent a powerful message,” adding, “If the American people think that just because they voted us into office and pay our salaries, benefits, and pensions, we are somehow obliged to listen to them, they are sorely mistaken.”


Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.


Photograph, of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on April 9th, by Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call/Getty.

Someone should inform that guy that voting based on poll numbers is not what our elected officials are supposed to do.

Quote:

---

"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," President Obama said during a speech at Mexico's Anthropology Museum. "I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will."

"But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do," Obama added.

---

How did the gun walking program turn out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obama

"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States, and were trafficked here by my administration for political reasons."

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Fixed.

---

Lol yes!

Wouldn't this thread be alot smaller if we renamed it smart things liberals say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Fixed.

---

Fuckin winning!

http://i.imgur.com/NE3vxWH.jpg

Come on Methais, pay attention, they are just "undocumented workers", just like I get out of a speeding ticket by telling the judge I wasn't actually illegally breaking the speed limit, I was conducting an "undocumented scientific speed research project."

You wouldn't know science if it politely informed you via a peer reviewed journal that its existence had been established beyond three standard deviations.

SICK BURN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You wouldn't know science if it politely informed you via a peer reviewed journal that its existence had been established beyond three standard deviations.

SICK BURN

---

:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Come on Methais, pay attention, they are just "undocumented workers", just like I get out of a speeding ticket by telling the judge I wasn't actually illegally breaking the speed limit, I was conducting an "undocumented scientific speed research project."

---

What should we call the ones that don't work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What should we call the ones that don't work?

---

Probably criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candor

Probably criminals.

---

Racist!

Happy Independence Day! Just think, if we hadn’t won that war, today wouldn’t be a holiday AND we’d have health care. - Bette Midler via Twitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Happy Independence Day! Just think, if we hadn’t won that war, today wouldn’t be a holiday AND we’d have health care. - Bette Midler via Twitter.

---

I'd love to hear her explanation on the health care part.

What makes her think she would even exist at all if we hadn't won that war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I'd love to hear her explanation on the health care part.

What makes her think she would even exist at all if we hadn't won that war?

---

She's probably thinking of the British socialized medicine.

Someone told me today that it's not a crime to be an undocumented worker.

Now to be fair I didn't ask this person's political leanings but I'll be willing to bet a dozen Sweetwater's Donut Mill's donuts that he was a liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

She's probably thinking of the British socialized medicine.

---

British type liberalism is really nothing to be proud of. They allow sections of their society to enforce Sharia law. This I had to see with my own eyes to believe. I can imagine it's terrible to work in London as any sort of law enforcement officer. I don't understand how there aren't riots constantly from the ultra-conservative islamists sects. They give them absolute autonomy outside the law to practice their fucked up version of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Someone told me today that it's not a crime to be an undocumented worker.

Now to be fair I didn't ask this person's political leanings but I'll be willing to bet a dozen Sweetwater's Donut Mill's donuts that he was a liberal.

---

What's an undocumented worker? I've known some illegal aliens that don't have jobs... are they considered undocumented unemployed?

You have to hand it to Progressives.. the one thing they are masters at is repackaging words to make them sound better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

You have to hand it to Progressives.. the one thing they are masters at is repackaging words to make them sound better.

---

That's exactly what I thought. I was thinking holy shit, enough people have referred to them as "undocumented workers" enough times that people are really starting to believe these are just people who are here legally but their papers have been lost in the mail or something.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3567573.html

Undocumented Immigrants Would Pay Billions More In Taxes If Allowed To Work Legally: Study

Quote:

---

Allowing undocumented immigrants to work legally in the U.S. would boost their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion annually, a new study finds.The study, conducted by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a non-partisan research organization, says that the country's 11.2 million undocumented immigrants already collectively contributed $10.6 billion in state and local taxes in 2010 -- mostly through sales and excise taxes, but also via property and income taxes -- and that that number could jump to more than $12.6 billion.

How? If allowed to work legally, undocumented immigrants would pay more in state income taxes, as well as participate fully in federal, state and local tax systems. ITEP's analysis also assumes that legalization would allow the undocumented to better bargain with employers, increasing their income and, in turn, tax contributions.

Immigration legislation currently before Congress would grant the legal right to work to many unauthorized U.S. workers. Regardless, multiple research reports find such a change would prove economically beneficial. Among them:

- A study by the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that found the immigration reform bill would shrink the deficit by $197 billion over the next decade.

- A study by the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project that found an increase in immigrant workers may lead to a boost in wages for U.S-born workers.

The majority of the American people appear behind such a change as well. Some 75 percent of Americans say that granting undocumented immigrants legal status would be good for the economy, Pew Research reported in June.

---

You underestimate the concept of enlightened egoism. If all else was equal, I would just eat bacon and chocolate all the time, but because I am aware that in the long run that would not be good for me, I eat other foods (if you can even call them food). In the same way, most people wouldn't want to pay more in taxes all else being equal, but all else is not equal. For some, there is a recognition that the government needs money to function, and they are much much much better off with a strong government than a weak one.

I think the far more interesting point of the article is that state and local taxes comprise 84% of what a certain class of people would pay if they paid federal taxes. I would expect this to completely deflate the people who complained bitterly about those who had no "skin in the game" as measured in paying federal income tax, but of course those complaints are intentionally specious. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You underestimate the concept of enlightened egoism. If all else was equal, I would just eat bacon and chocolate all the time, but because I am aware that in the long run that would not be good for me, I eat other foods (if you can even call them food). In the same way, most people wouldn't want to pay more in taxes all else being equal, but all else is not equal. For some, there is a recognition that the government needs money to function, and they are much much much better off with a strong government than a weak one.

I think the far more interesting point of the article is that state and local taxes comprise 84% of what a certain class of people would pay if they paid federal taxes. I would expect this to completely deflate the people who complained bitterly about those who had no "skin in the game" as measured in paying federal income tax, but of course those complaints are intentionally specious. Oh well.

---

You don't understand how someone who pays no federal income tax has no skin in the game on federal issues?

You realize that state and local governments != the federal government right? We have separate levels of government that are independent of each other. I mean, I realize it may be convenience for your warped world view to forget that, but alas, such is not the case.

So, if someone pays nothing to the federal government, what incentive do they have to elect politicians who will spend tax dollars wisely? Just the worry that if things get really bad maybe they will have to pay taxes? The understanding that higher taxes on businesses and others reduce growth in the economy which will hurt them be proxy? The knowledge that printing our way out of debt spurs inflation which is a regressive tax that hits the poor the most? I wish. They don't think long term like that, the ones voting for Obama anyways.

Nevermind the moral issue that we should all pay to support our government, and yes, each of our governments.

But I suppose you might get more votes building your tax and spend empire on as narrow a base as possible, no chance that will end badly.

Immigration really isn't a liberal/conservative issue. It's just a huge stinking policy mess.

Milton Friedman and other people considered conservative would now be considered liberal by Sarah Palin standards.

I think immigration is one of those issues that divides the pragmatic/reasonable people with the ideology driven (liberal or conservative).

When I drive through the "little mexico" part of my town, I realize there is no way we're sending them all back. They are hard working and generate economic activity but have little legal protection and are almost a weird american form of a caste.

Fix the shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crb

You don't understand how someone who pays no federal income tax has no skin in the game on federal issues?

---

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel.

:)

"No doubt, the inclination is to boycott Florida, stop conventions, to isolate Florida as a kind of apartheid state..." -Rev. Jesse Jackson

“[W]e refused to throw in the towel and do nothing,” Obama said. “We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt, I bet on American workers, and American ingenuity and three years later that bet is paying off in a big way.”

I'm speaking now for all white people, but especially people who have had to try to change the last 50 or 60 years. And they -- a lot of them have really tried to change, and I'm sorry for this stuff. That's all I'm saying." -Chris Matthews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel.

:)

---

Because fuel tax = income tax, amirite?

People who pay no federal income tax have no skin in the game!
-They pay state and local income tax in addition to other taxes such as sales and property.
People who pay no federal income tax have no skin in the federal government game!
-They pay other federal taxes, including excise taxes.
People who pay no federal income tax do not pay any federal income tax!
-Congratulations on your tautology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

People who pay no federal income tax have no skin in the game!
-They pay state and local income tax in addition to other taxes such as sales and property.
People who pay no federal income tax have no skin in the federal government game!
-They pay other federal taxes, including excise taxes.
People who pay no federal income tax do not pay any federal income tax!
-Congratulations on your tautology.

---

So just how are the states and municipalities better able to impose income tax on illegals than the IRS? You do realize that the majority of all taxes for non-land owners are income taxes, right? So, if you get rid of the largest tax burden and then you have a large quantity of people dealing in black and gray market areas for a lot of things where taxes are a moot point, how much skin do they have in the game?

Seriously Latrine this is weak. Illegals dodge massive amounts of tax burden, loads of them operate in a cash only black/gray market economy and carry little or no liability for their actions at all. Illegal alien driving illegally in the US carries no responsibility for their actions should something happen. They don't pay to support schools that educate their kids, they increase costs due to blatant refusal to learn English and the Liberal cow-towing to provide accommodation and in many areas substantially increase the crime rate by actions if not just by the fact they are CRIMINALS ALREADY for just being there. This also doesn't even begin to address the massive cash drain they are on the economy since they tend to export shit tons of that illegally earned money cross border.

My ancestors were immigrants, immigration is a good thing, that means going through the immigration process and integrating into the community. Not committing a crime to become a squatter and then take advantage of tolerance and generosity to refuse to assimilate into the existing community. We need immigration reform, not a free ride for those that have already broken our laws and who continue to amount to an economic and social cancer.

In the 50's and 60's the farms got worked, the fields picked, laundry done and so on with all the jobs stereotyped as ones illegals do. The difference was, back then, the people doing them paid taxes and were Americans. It should be that way again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

So just how are the states and municipalities better able to impose income tax on illegals than the IRS? You do realize that the majority of all taxes for non-land owners are income taxes, right?

---

You say "the majority"; my interest is piqued. What specific numbers do you have? Let's say for income, sales, and excise taxes. The rest of your post follows from this point, so I think we should settle it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

What's an undocumented worker? I've known some illegal aliens that don't have jobs... are they considered undocumented unemployed?

You have to hand it to Progressives.. the one thing they are masters at is repackaging words to make them sound better.

---

This reminds me of the kinds of things I did when I was a kid.

I was 14 and working as a "ticket taker" at a local amusement park, I would take the ticket of the incoming person, and welcome them to the park.

So I hated being called a ticket taker, and made my own badge that said "Egress Granter and Good Feelings Distributor"

Maybe I was a liberal in my younger days.

-Yes, Egress means exit. But entrance and exit gates were at the same area, I routinely was at the exit gate.

I didn't believe the quote.. so had to find it on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r32Rdam-Hg8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I didn't believe the quote.. so had to find it on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r32Rdam-Hg8

---

Significantly reduce our deficit? Increase wages?

Surprised he didn't say it would also cure cancer and make gas free.

"Taxation is theft." -- John Boehner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

"Taxation is theft." -- John Boehner

---

Not to imply that Boehner isn't a fucking retard or anything, but with the way the government pisses away our tax dollars these days on useless bullshit and the incredibly stupid shit they put taxes on now, how is that a false statement in the grand scheme of things?

“Here’s the thing — the president is one of the most practically non-partisan presidents I have seen in the White House" - Nancy Pelosi

Attachment 5409

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

“Here’s the thing — the president is one of the most practically non-partisan presidents I have seen in the White House" - Nancy Pelosi

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

"Taxation is theft." -- John Boehner

---

Attachment 5408

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Attachment 5408

---

Its blurry, but that looks like Ron Paul...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

“Here’s the thing — the president is one of the most practically non-partisan presidents I have seen in the White House" - Nancy Pelosi

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzaMs5iaX7w

Ask yourselves this (and yes, that means collectively), what would the President have to say or do to demonstrate to you(s [youts]) that he is a moderate, or otherwise non-partisan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Ask yourselves this (and yes, that means collectively), what would the President have to say or do to demonstrate to you(s [youts]) that he is a moderate, or otherwise non-partisan?

---

For starters he can stop blaming everything on Republicans. He can stop accusing Republicans of "manufacturing" scandals. Y'know, he can stop acting like a Democrat.

Oh yes, it is absolutely empirical that the President has blamed everything on Republicans. Are you even listening to yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Ask yourselves this (and yes, that means collectively), what would the President have to say or do to demonstrate to you(s [youts]) that he is a moderate, or otherwise non-partisan?

---

Remember when Obama came up with sequestration, and then blamed republicans for it?

And while not directly an Obama thing, but is no different than the shit he pulls...remember when democrats had control of Detroit for 50 years, and then blamed republicans for it going bankrupt?

Remember when Obama gave GM to the unions?

Remember when Obama basically shut down drilling here and demonized oil companies, and then tried to take credit for drilling increases despite it all being done on private land, saying under his watch we've been drilling more than ever or however he put it?

How about all these "phony scandals" that are just the work of republicans trying to cause diversions?

Remember when anything happened that Obama didn't blame on Bush or republicans/tea party/conservatives? Me either.

Remember the Alamo?

Remember when Superman was given "tar" kryptonite by Richard Pryor and then Superman got drunk on Johnny Walker Red shortly before kicking his own ass? That was great.