Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
From Elected Leaders, among others
Published on October 6, 2011 By Dr Guy In Politics

Many have tried to paint the Tea Party as racist, just for the simple fact that it is not proper to criticize a black president.  No such rights were given to any previous president, democrat or republican, but those who criticize Obama are called racist.  The reason is obvious.  They cannot defend his policies, so they must demean the detractors.

But in their zeal to spew their hatred, the left is coming unglued.  Their latest endeavor is "Occupy Wallstreet" (or whatever town they are in).  Their list of demands is to say the least childish, but their fervor remains intact.  So much so that Rev Sharpton is pushing them and wishing them luck.  George Soros and his outlets are supporting them.  And democratic congressman are praising them.  But what are they praising/supporting/pushing?

It seems that perhaps the gild is off the lily, as the group, besides being a bagel short of a breakfast, is also very racist. 

Then you have the self loathing type

So what does this all mean?  After all, kooks are everywhere.  But those pesky democrats think this is what passes for the "grass roots" movement.  (I guess they mean grass as in marijuana.).  And of course you have the lamest of the congressional democrats (the one that wanted to "deem" obamacare into law) calling for the revocation of voting rights for politically incorrect voting blacks..

It is so reassuring to see our defenders of freedom denying it to people who do not parrot their thoughts.  Almost makes you miss the honesty of the KKK who did not couch their racism in flowery phrases and false movements.  It reminds me of the honest thief and the dishonest one.  The honest one tells you he is going to rob you. The dishonest one tells you he is going to help you.  The end result is the same.

 


Comments (Page 2)
on Oct 14, 2011

Lots of progressive groups have put their weight behind "Occupy Wallstreet", as has George Soros (who made his fortune with speculation) and the government of Iran*.

The entire thing is rubbish.

(*Incidentally, why do progressive groups always end up on the same side as homophobic sexists?)

on Oct 14, 2011

Smoothseas
EVERY administration since it was first passed supported it.

Not repealing it is not the same as supporting it.  Before barney Frank and maxine waters did their dance with Fannie and Freddie, and their extortion with the banks, it had no teeth.  Once they started the extortion, it got its teeth, and Bush did indeed sound the alarm.  to no avail.

 

Smoothseas
!3 Demands? There is no official list of demands. AFAIK the 13 demands are simply a forum post from a user of the organizations website.

It is on the organizations web site.  That makes it theirs.  Now if they all endorse it is another argument.  But as it is on their website (occupywallst.org), you have to attribute it to them.

on Oct 14, 2011

MasonM
Oh yeah, Adbusters, the radically anti-semetic bunch of very sensible people.
That's a sane bunch to take your marching orders from.

About the same as Mikey Moron and George Soros.

on Oct 14, 2011

Leauki
The entire thing is rubbish.

of course it is!  It is merely being propped up by the anti-semites in the democrat party, and their willing sycophants in the media.  I had one of the cretins try to tell me that the anti-war protesters of the 60s and 70s did not spit on the troops (I witnessed it, and also had my older sister admit to it).  They are lying, trying to create a grass root movement out of wax paper.

on Oct 14, 2011

"Before barney Frank and maxine waters did their dance with Fannie and Freddie, and their extortion with the banks, it had no teeth"

It still has no teeth.  All it does is require banks to do some lending in the same areas in which they have branches if they want to merge.

 

"It is on the organizations web site.  That makes it theirs"

Really? Even though their site explicitly states that it is not their list but simply a post from one of their forums users? I'm suspect the owner of this site would disagree with that kind of "logic".

 

"of course it is!  It is merely being propped up by the anti-semites in the democrat party"

Amazing how the self righteous often defer to others with different points of views as racists and/or bigots.

on Oct 17, 2011

Smoothseas
It still has no teeth. All it does is require banks to do some lending in the same areas in which they have branches if they want to merge.

"You loan or you get investigated and audited by the IRS". - Like I said, the teeth are there.

Smoothseas
Really? Even though their site explicitly states that it is not their list but simply a post from one of their forums users? I'm suspect the owner of this site would disagree with that kind of "logic".

Really.  I doubt the owner of the site is smart enough to know logic.  But you do not post what you do not endorse - unless it is a board.  That is not a discussion board.

Smoothseas
Amazing how the self righteous often defer to others with different points of views as racists and/or bigots.

There are 2 kinds of people I cannot tolerate.  Bigots and hypocrites.  That is why I cannot stand liberals.  It is not about different points of views, it is about them yelling (and waving their signs) all those anti-semitic statements.

on Oct 17, 2011

"You loan or you get investigated and audited by the IRS"

Did you think this one up while wearing your aluminum foil hat?

 

"But you do not post what you do not endorse - unless it is a board.  That is not a discussion board."

Like I said it was posted on their forum....And this is in fact called a forum as well.

 

"There are 2 kinds of people I cannot tolerate.  Bigots and hypocrites."

There is a certain amount of of hypocrisy when you whine about certain things said about the TEA Party and then do the exact same thing about others.

on Oct 18, 2011

Smoothseas
"You loan or you get investigated and audited by the IRS"

Did you think this one up while wearing your aluminum foil hat?

No, but if you check the congressional record, you will find similar verbiage.  Couched in politicalese.

on Oct 18, 2011

Smoothseas
Like I said it was posted on their forum....And this is in fact called a forum as well.

Uh, no.  I found it on their front page.

 

Smoothseas
There is a certain amount of of hypocrisy when you whine about certain things said about the TEA Party and then do the exact same thing about others.

I do not whine.  I do challenge people to back up spurious allegations.  If you make a charge, back it up.  I hardly find that hypocritical.  Like I said, I found their manifesto on their home page.  If you can show anything I wrote as being false, I will retract it.  I have done so in the past. 

on Oct 18, 2011

"I do challenge people to back up spurious allegations"

You did no such such thing.....You did the same thing SOME others do, You took the actions of a couple of individuals and try to paint an entire group with the actions of only those individuals. 

 

 

on Oct 21, 2011

Smoothseas
"I do challenge people to back up spurious allegations"

You did no such such thing.....You did the same thing SOME others do, You took the actions of a couple of individuals and try to paint an entire group with the actions of only those individuals.

The thread was that I "whined" about people posting spurious allegations.  I replied that I challenged them to back up the allegations.  You challenged me on my statement. I backed it up.  So I am not mad or angry that you decided to challenge me since that is what I do to others.  It is not hypocrisy as anyone can back up their allegations.  That does not mean I will like the proof, but I will not debate facts.  Allegations, I will challenge, facts I will not.

I am careful to back up my posts (unless pure opinion in which case I will make that clear) with facts.  That is not the case with most of the allegations I challenge, and indeed, upon being challenged, I usually hear no more about it since they cannot back up their allegations.  hence they are opinions, not facts.

Now, as far as my language, we may disagree on the wording.  Rampant is not universal.  I said rampant and I do believe it and have provided NUMEROUS examples of it (check my blog history).  You may quibble with how rampant, but I did not say it was all.  The difference I was attempting to point out here, is that the right does ostracize their loons - the left embraces them.  Again, these are general statements that exceptions can be found for.  But if you are going to allege that the right is embracing bad behavior from the Tea Party, I challenge you to find the bad behavior, and then the embracing of it.  Which is what I did here with the left.

So I refute your allegation, and stand by the evidence presented.

on Oct 21, 2011

  "But if you are going to allege that the right is embracing bad behavior from the Tea Party, I challenge you to find the bad behavior, and then the embracing of it.  Which is what I did here with the left."

You do nothing of the sort. You do point out "bad behavior" .  But saying that people who support the movement support those examples of bad behavior simply because they support the movement is rediculous.  You are doing exactly the same thing that was done with the Tea Party by others.

on Oct 24, 2011

Smoothseas
But saying that people who support the movement support those examples of bad behavior simply because they support the movement is rediculous.

No, they are supporting the movement, and NOT refuting the dirt that goes along with it.  Again, if you care to make the allegations with the Tea Party, that has bent over backwards to distance itself from the dirt, you are welcome to, and will be proved wrong.

These cretins have embraced the filth, they have not repudiated it.  Birds of a feather and all......

on Oct 24, 2011

"Again, if you care to make the allegations with the Tea Party"

I don't. I'm not like you who thinks if you're not on one side you're on the other.  Plain and simple I believe everyone has the right to assembly and to peacefully protest. There is always a few in a crowd that have views unlike my own, or do and say things that I don't agree with. Not publicly repudiating individuals is not embracing them, often it is simply ignoring them. 

 

If your purpose was repudiating bad behavior you would have simply done that. Instead you did something entirely different. So don't bother trying to make others believe that your purpose is something other than what it really isy because what it really is is VERY transparent.

 

on Oct 25, 2011

Sorry you do not understand what this is all about.  I have not demanded any of the protestors be arrested or the protest be broken up.  But this is just the latest in a series of articles I read (again, I have not hidden my history of articles) demonstrating that the true racist and bigots (and yes, even gay haters) are on the left.  Theirs is not a peaceful protest (how about the 14 year old in Dallas, the heroin dealer in Philly, the love spouting clown in Dayton, or the violence in Oakland?).  If they were peaceful, this article would never be written.  But I did not include all the anti-semitism they have displayed.

So yes, I was not trying to hide what this article was about.  That you thought it was something else, perhaps you can assist me in bettering my composition skills.  But I am glad you now understand this is not about banning protestors or inciting fear.  It is about pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

Meta
Views
» 2690
Comments
» 31
Category
Sponsored Links