Alien Space Bats wrote:
They ought to put that on a campaign sign, don't you think?Vote for Romney
or
Go to Hell!
They already do that, just more discreetly. They let Faux do most of the advertising for them.
Advertisement

by Divair » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:30 pm
Alien Space Bats wrote:
They ought to put that on a campaign sign, don't you think?Vote for Romney
or
Go to Hell!

by Farnhamia » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:32 pm
Alien Space Bats wrote:
They ought to put that on a campaign sign, don't you think?Vote for Romney?
Go to Hell!

by Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:32 pm

by Neo Art » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:33 pm

by The Emerald Dawn » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:34 pm

by Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:34 pm

by The Tiger Kingdom » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:39 pm

by Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:40 pm

by The Tiger Kingdom » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:41 pm

by Neo Art » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:45 pm

by Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:46 pm

by The Tiger Kingdom » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:47 pm

by Neo Art » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:50 pm
Objectiveland wrote:The individual decides what is funny. I say it is funny to me therefore it is.

by The Emerald Dawn » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:50 pm
The Tiger Kingdom wrote:Objectiveland wrote:
The individual decides what is funny. I say it is funny to me therefore it is.
Now that's funny. And sorry, no, somehow loudly declaring "IT'S FUNNY" after being profoundly unfunny does not change anything regarding the objective humor value of said statement, much as I wish it could.

by Divair » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:52 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:The Tiger Kingdom wrote:Now that's funny. And sorry, no, somehow loudly declaring "IT'S FUNNY" after being profoundly unfunny does not change anything regarding the objective humor value of said statement, much as I wish it could.
IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE HE POINTS OUT WHY YOU AREN'T FUNNY!
HA!

by The Grand World Order » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:56 pm

by The Black Forrest » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:11 pm
Doug Wright wrote:
I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, “My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.”
It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you “disagree” with your candidate on these issues.

by The Emerald Dawn » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:13 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Doug Wright wrote:
I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, “My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.”
It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you “disagree” with your candidate on these issues.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/26/my_taxe ... il_rights/
Hmmmmm. I never thought of it that way. How many times have we read I have nothing against gays but I am voting for the guy that does.
Oh well. Just one of the many reasons I don't like Willard.
Can't wait for the elections to be over.

by Ashmoria » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:16 pm
Northern Dominus wrote: Really? It's just the fact that Obama is a Democrat?
I don't recall Clinton ever being harped at to produce a birth certificate. He never was called a liar during the State of the Union address, didn't have some pissant racist governor shove a finger in his face. Did Ken Starr and the rest of the "moral majority" waste our time with an impeachment hearing because they felt like everyone should know about the president's private affairs more than we needed to in the first place? Yes, but even then you didn't have Newt Gingrich using the same vitriol and venom that the neo-con GOP rhetoric uses these days.
And that's just the abuse he gets from his "peers" in government. It gets worse when you consider the Tea Party and their blatant crass bigotry.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/wp-content ... -party.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.co ... -kenya.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EyMUWXE9nzg/U ... turban.png
http://www.blueridgemuse.com/wp-content ... acism5.jpg
Hell yes the whole GOP plan has been structured around old-school WASP racism and fear. Sure the end result may be a return to absolute power like the US experienced...well before it was a nation and just a bunch of colonies on the east coast. But make no mistake, the core underlying motif behind the GOP platform since at least 2008 is "the other", and how much "other" can you get in this country than a black man when your core demographic is under-educated, caucasian (mostly), and easily swayed by fanatical dialogue?

by The Black Forrest » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:19 pm
Ashmoria wrote:Northern Dominus wrote: Really? It's just the fact that Obama is a Democrat?
I don't recall Clinton ever being harped at to produce a birth certificate. He never was called a liar during the State of the Union address, didn't have some pissant racist governor shove a finger in his face. Did Ken Starr and the rest of the "moral majority" waste our time with an impeachment hearing because they felt like everyone should know about the president's private affairs more than we needed to in the first place? Yes, but even then you didn't have Newt Gingrich using the same vitriol and venom that the neo-con GOP rhetoric uses these days.
And that's just the abuse he gets from his "peers" in government. It gets worse when you consider the Tea Party and their blatant crass bigotry.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/wp-content ... -party.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.co ... -kenya.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EyMUWXE9nzg/U ... turban.png
http://www.blueridgemuse.com/wp-content ... acism5.jpg
Hell yes the whole GOP plan has been structured around old-school WASP racism and fear. Sure the end result may be a return to absolute power like the US experienced...well before it was a nation and just a bunch of colonies on the east coast. But make no mistake, the core underlying motif behind the GOP platform since at least 2008 is "the other", and how much "other" can you get in this country than a black man when your core demographic is under-educated, caucasian (mostly), and easily swayed by fanatical dialogue?
there is some small element of true racism in it.
but asb is right. its a democrat thing. they were brutal in their criticism of bill clinton and his wife. they accused mrs clinton of murder for god's sake. they impeached the president over nothing--any excuse would do once they decided on their course of action. they accused the clinton of looting the white house on their way out.
the reason it feels worse now is because they are crazier than ever. crazier people do and say crazier things.

by The Black Forrest » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:37 pm

by Alien Space Bats » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:53 pm

by Wikkiwallana » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:59 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Bradfordville, Grinning Dragon, Jilia, Port Caverton, Rary, The Grand Fifth Imperium, The Rio Grande River Basin, Thepeopl, Xenon Prime
Advertisement