Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
koz: Thank U for making supporting my case for raising the voting age back up to 21!
Koz, I think bbotc has shown he's not capable of having serious discussion about the issues facing our country. He only has sweeping solutions -- build a wall, kick them out, round them up, bomb 'em -- without regard to any practical application of these proposals, and then to top it off, all of his answers require the same thing -- big government. bbotc is the biggest god damned socialist on this board and he doesn't even know it. But I will say this for him, however, at least he's not a batshit blithering idiot like otcbargains. Congratulations, bbotc.
Photos of my feets and toes ... ???
Some of you ax me why my photos never show my feets
and toes. The answer involves the "foot fetish" exhibited
by the coach of the NY Jets feet-ball team. I simply do NOT
want to be responsible for breaking up his marriage ... .
I think ksuave makes some good points
about the practical problems of dealing with the
mentally ill. I know that SCHIZOIDS (usually men)
don't typically manifest their illness until they reach
their early 20's. Just as men's bodies often keep
growing into their early 20's, this is also true of their
brains and brain chemistry. Most women have
completed their bodily growth and brain growth by
age 18 or 19. Most murders and violent crimes are
committed by men in their 20's. Most property
crimes are committed by males who are 15 to 19
years of age.
bbotcs, I think that ksuave makes some good points
about the practical problems of dealing with the
mentally ill. I know that SCHIZOIDS (usually men)
don't usually manifest their illness until they reach
their early 20's. Just as men's bodies often keep
growing into their early 20's, this is also true of their
brains and brain chemistry. Most women have
completed their bodily growth and brain growth by
age 18 or 19. Most murders and violent crimes are
committed by men in their 20's.
Well, bbotc, do you agree or disagree that the idea of rounding up all the crazy folks out there (being kept from "running loose", as you said) doesn't cause some dilemmas?
Who's to say they're crazy? Joe Stalin declared that anyone who disagreed with him was crazy and he sent them off to Siberian mental hospitals. I have a feeling that's not what you had in mind. (If you did, it's adios RougeDolphin.)
What about all the schizophrenics who aren't violent and who don't pose a threat to anyone? Should they be rounded up too, just in case?
What kind of guidelines would you establish (since you brought up the idea) about who should be allowed to run loose and who shouldn't? What is the criteria?
And then, what should be done with them? If they're imprisoned without have been charged with having broken any laws, their constitutional rights will have been violated which I know you wouldn't approve of. If they're given mental health care, that would be socialism.
I agree with you that crazy people pose a real problem for our society, but I do not have a solution for how society should deal with them. You seem to feel that you do. Please elaborate.
I think people at all ends of the political spectrum can agree that kozuh poses an immediate and imminent threat to society, and society has a right to protect itself.
Wait, you two are actually ...
INTELLIGENT and SENSITIVE ... ???
I had no idea ... .
The question would become "Who decides who is nuts?" It's a complex issue. You wouldn't want Barack Obama making that decision; I wouldn't want John Ashcroft. Would you have them rounded up, and then put where? In FEMA camps? If they can be jailed (have their rights to life and liberty taken away) for aberrant but un-crimial behavior, would it be more unconstitutional if their right to bear assault weapons were taken away instead? What do you think?
This whole mess should start a discourse on how our society should deal with the severely mentally ill who are walking among us--from the schizophrenics living under a bridge to guys like the Tuscon assassin or the Virginia Tech assassin. Issue one: Should these people be running loose?
Livin' in the 'hood, is dangerous ...
I remember when I was a chow, my momma used to ax me:
"What do you want to be ... IF you is able to grow up ... ???"
War Eagle kills Duck ... !!!
Just say ... NO ... to quack ... ((<: }
Final score: 21 - 19
SEC has won 5 straight National Champion Ships
... what ... that's how we spell it in Texas ... .
koz:
If U worked on an Italian parsley farm, they'd pay U in Euros.
As a yut, I worked on a Parsley Farm ...
but quit when they started garnishing my wages ...
with parsley ... .
A Turning Point in the Discourse, but in Which Direction?
By MATT BAI
Published: January 8, 2011
WASHINGTON — Within minutes of the first reports Saturday that Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and a score of people with her had been shot in Tucson, pages began disappearing from the Web. One was Sarah Palin’s infamous “cross hairs” map from last year, which showed a series of contested Congressional districts, including Ms. Giffords’s, with gun targets trained on them. Another was from Daily Kos, the liberal blog, where one of the congresswoman’s apparently liberal constituents declared her “dead to me” after Ms. Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi in House leadership elections last week.
Odds are pretty good that neither of these — nor any other isolated bit of imagery — had much to do with the shooting in Tucson. But scrubbing them from the Internet couldn’t erase all evidence of the rhetorical recklessness that permeates our political moment. The question is whether Saturday’s shooting marks the logical end point of such a moment — or rather the beginning of a terrifying new one.
Modern America has endured such moments before. The intense ideological clashes of the 1960s, which centered on Communism and civil rights and Vietnam, were marked by a series of assassinations that changed the course of American history, carried out against a televised backdrop of urban riots and self-immolating war protesters. During the culture wars of the 1990s, fought over issues like gun rights and abortion, right-wing extremists killed 168 people in Oklahoma City and terrorized hundreds of others in Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park and at abortion clinics in the South.
What’s different about this moment is the emergence of a political culture — on blogs and Twitter and cable television — that so loudly and readily reinforces the dark visions of political extremists, often for profit or political gain. It wasn’t clear Saturday whether the alleged shooter in Tucson was motivated by any real political philosophy or by voices in his head, or perhaps by both. But it’s hard not to think he was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.
The problem here doesn’t lie with the activists like most of those who populate the Tea Parties, ordinary citizens who are doing what citizens are supposed to do — engaging in a conversation about the direction of the country. Rather, the problem would seem to rest with the political leaders who pander to the margins of the margins, employing whatever words seem likely to win them contributions or TV time, with little regard for the consequences.
Consider the comments of Sharron Angle, the Tea Party favorite who unsuccessfully ran against Harry Reid for the Senate in Nevada last year. She talked about “domestic enemies” in the Congress and said, “I hope we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies.” Then there’s Rick Barber, a Republican who lost his primary in a Congressional race in Alabama, but not before airing an ad in which someone dressed as George Washington listened to an attack on the Obama agenda and gravely proclaimed, “Gather your armies.”
In fact, much of the message among Republicans last year, as they sought to exploit the Tea Party phenomenon, centered — like the Tea Party moniker itself — on this imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like “tyranny” and “socialism” when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms.
It’s not that such leaders are necessarily trying to incite violence or hysteria; in fact, they’re not. It’s more that they are so caught up in a culture of hyperbole, so amused with their own verbal flourishes and the ensuing applause, that — like the bloggers and TV hosts to which they cater — they seem to lose their hold on the power of words.
On Saturday, for instance, Michael Steele, the Republican Party chairman, was among the first to issue a statement saying he was “shocked and horrified” by the Arizona shooting, and no doubt he was. But it was Mr. Steele who, last March, said he hoped to send Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the “firing line.”
Mr. Steele didn’t mean this the way it sounded, of course; he was talking about “firing” in the pink slip sense of the word. But his carelessly constructed, made-for-television rhetoric reinforced the dominant imagery of the moment — a portrayal of 21st-century Washington as being like 18th-century Lexington and Concord, an occupied country on the verge of armed rebellion.
Contrast that with one of John McCain’s finer moments as a presidential candidate in 2008, when a woman at a Minnesota town hall meeting asserted that Mr. Obama was a closeted Arab. “No, ma’am, he’s not,” Mr. McCain quickly replied, taking back the microphone. “He’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with.” Mr. McCain was harking back to a different moment in American politics, in which such disagreements could be intense without becoming existential clashes in which the freedom of the country was at stake.
None of this began last year, or even with Mr. Obama or with the Tea Party; there were constant intimations during George W. Bush’s presidency that he was a modern Hitler or the devious designer of an attack on the World Trade Center, a man whose very existence threatened the most cherished American ideals.
The more pressing question, though, is where this all ends — whether we will begin to re-evaluate the piercing pitch of our political debate in the wake of Saturday’s shooting, or whether we are hurtling unstoppably into a frightening period more like the late 1960s.
The country labors still to recover from the memories of Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador Hotel, of Memphis and Birmingham and Watts. Tucson will either be the tragedy that brought us back from the brink, or the first in a series of gruesome memories to come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09bai.html?ref=politics
the tea party will take a lot of heat because of the shooter in Tucson from those who don't understand what the tea party is about. Already hearing "tea party this" and "tea party that" on the news coverage today. I think there is a big problem that might be going unnoticed.
A kid at a community college in Maryland wrote as essay about his addiction to killing (he served in Iraq) and was kicked out of the college. Could this 22 year old Tucson killer have the same addiction? Is this uncommon among warriors who have killed? It needs to be studied, and soon, imo. Or maybe it has been studied and a lid has been put on a very serious problem.
Don't know enough about today's shooter's background yet to figure out if it could be a factor. He might not have been in a war zone and he might have been as crazy as a loon from day one.
SoxFan: You made the allegation. U are the one who should "prove it". You are amusing. ha ha ha
Yes, Perry is an ... EMPTY SUIT ...
He only got 54% of the vote this past November
when the other state-wide candidates got more
than 60% ... .
He is NOT very popular in Texas because we
know that he has NO core values and beliefs ... .
PS: He started off as a Democrat, but switched
parties when Republicans became the majority.
Prove it wrong or STFU.
...Thanks ....saved it .
.......here's a couple more on Texas..I'm too lazy to post them here .. ;)
TEXAS - 2011 Budget Shortfall
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/
-------------
So why haven't we heard more about Texas, one of the most important economy's in America? Well, it's because it doesn't fit the script. It's a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state. You can't fit it into a nice storyline, so it's ignored.
But if you want to make comparisons between US states and ailing European countries, think of Texas as being like America's Ireland. Ireland was once praised as a model for economic growth: conservatives loved it for its pro-business, anti-tax, low-spending strategy, and hailed it as the way forward for all of Europe. Then it blew up.
This is the sleeper state budget crisis of 2011, and it will be praised for doing great, right up until the moment before it blows up.
http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1#
And about the deficit in Texas . . .
The Texas Omen
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 6, 2011
These are tough times for state governments. Huge deficits loom almost everywhere, from California to New York, from New Jersey to Texas.
Wait — Texas? Wasn’t Texas supposed to be thriving even as the rest of America suffered? Didn’t its governor declare, during his re-election campaign, that “we have billions in surplus”? Yes, it was, and yes, he did. But reality has now intruded, in the form of a deficit expected to run as high as $25 billion over the next two years.
And that reality has implications for the nation as a whole. For Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can’t make it there, it can’t make it anywhere.
How bad is the Texas deficit? Comparing budget crises among states is tricky, for technical reasons. Still, data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggest that the Texas budget gap is worse than New York’s, about as bad as California’s, but not quite up to New Jersey levels.
The point, however, is that just the other day Texas was being touted as a role model (and still is by commentators who haven’t been keeping up with the news). It was the state the recession supposedly passed by, thanks to its low taxes and business-friendly policies. Its governor boasted that its budget was in good shape thanks to his “tough conservative decisions.”
Oh, and at a time when there’s a full-court press on to demonize public-sector unions as the source of all our woes, Texas is nearly demon-free: less than 20 percent of public-sector workers there are covered by union contracts, compared with almost 75 percent in New York.
So what happened to the “Texas miracle” many people were talking about even a few months ago?
Part of the answer is that reports of a recession-proof state were greatly exaggerated. It’s true that Texas job losses haven’t been as severe as those in the nation as a whole since the recession began in 2007. But Texas has a rapidly growing population — largely, suggests Harvard’s Edward Glaeser, because its liberal land-use and zoning policies have kept housing cheap. There’s nothing wrong with that; but given that rising population, Texas needs to create jobs more rapidly than the rest of the country just to keep up with a growing work force.
And when you look at unemployment, Texas doesn’t seem particularly special: its unemployment rate is below the national average, thanks in part to high oil prices, but it’s about the same as the unemployment rate in New York or Massachusetts.
What about the budget? The truth is that the Texas state government has relied for years on smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of sound finances in the face of a serious “structural” budget deficit — that is, a deficit that persists even when the economy is doing well. When the recession struck, hitting revenue in Texas just as it did everywhere else, that illusion was bound to collapse.
The only thing that let Gov. Rick Perry get away, temporarily, with claims of a surplus was the fact that Texas enacts budgets only once every two years, and the last budget was put in place before the depth of the economic downturn was clear. Now the next budget must be passed — and Texas may have a $25 billion hole to fill. Now what?
Given the complete dominance of conservative ideology in Texas politics, tax increases are out of the question. So it has to be spending cuts.
Yet Mr. Perry wasn’t lying about those “tough conservative decisions”: Texas has indeed taken a hard, you might say brutal, line toward its most vulnerable citizens. Among the states, Texas ranks near the bottom in education spending per pupil, while leading the nation in the percentage of residents without health insurance. It’s hard to imagine what will happen if the state tries to eliminate its huge deficit purely through further cuts.
I don’t know how the mess in Texas will end up being resolved. But the signs don’t look good, either for the state or for the nation.
Right now, triumphant conservatives in Washington are declaring that they can cut taxes and still balance the budget by slashing spending. Yet they haven’t been able to do that even in Texas, which is willing both to impose great pain (by its stinginess on health care) and to shortchange the future (by neglecting education). How are they supposed to pull it off nationally, especially when the incoming Republicans have declared Medicare, Social Security and defense off limits?
People used to say that the future happens first in California, but these days what happens in Texas is probably a better omen. And what we’re seeing right now is a future that doesn’t work.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on January 7, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition.
Stephanie, thanks for the links ...
Here's a link that helps explain why State and Local
government employment is decreasing:
http://www.pensiontsunami.com/
There is a ton of information you can find here Kozuh...
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/16/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-repeats-questionable-statistic-growth/
and more here..not so long.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/notes-on-government-employment/
from what I have seen through reading a bunch of stuff is that there is NO sector that has job increases except in
China, India, Thailand, Mexico .. etc .. etc.. from our companies employing folks over there ..
Stephanie, what about the Federal Gov ???
Can you show us a chart of Federal employment
and FEDERAL PAY under Obama ... ??? TIA
SoxFan: We have reduced public sector jobs under Obama? Planet earth to Sox Fan, planet earth to Sox Fan.
ksuave, I love your new Hispanic ...
Governor in New Mexico; I wish she was Gov of
Texas. Perry is a whimp compared to her.
Swanny also is blessed with a great Governor, a
good pro-life Catholic named Chris Christi ... ((<: }
You and swanny now have even more in common;
you both have terrific governors who are showing
the other Governors how a State should be run.
I'm responding to your post on the zip code board this morning on this thread instead because that thread is not meant for political or cultural discussion. It's a stock picking thread.
Considering the number of posts you make mocking minorities (your stupid, fat black women posts) you are not in any position to speak on behalf of Hispanics, irregardless where you live.
And for your information, I currently live in a state -- New Mexico -- that has a higher percentage of Hispanics than does Texas. I also lived for many years in Texas itself, including El Paso, Dallas and Austin, so your credentials as an expert on what Hispanics believe do not impress me. Right-winger crackers such as yourself always like to qualify their unrequieted racial baiting by saying that their just talking about illegal aliens. Do me a favor, Koz, why don't go east of the freeway, find a group of Hispanic citizens and ask them if they agree with you and your Anglo friend in Maryland that the way to deal with the immigration problem in the US is to round up all the stinking Latinos and have them deported. Will you do that for me?
But we have had new tax cuts except you don't know about them - what a surprise.
Oh I can't wait until Sarah starts shooting animals as that's the best part as it shows her kindness killing those creatures before their time.
I'm so happy for the extension of the Bush tax cuts because they worked so well as we only lost 600,000 private sector jobs under bush and gained 1,000,000 new public sector jobs. Under the idiot Obama we have reduced those public sector jobs and gain private sector jobs - that's not the way of Bush now is it?
I read his posts and and I think I can't seriously debate with a guy like bbotc. It's like picking on the retarded boy.
We haven't had new taxs cuts. Congress and President Obama merely extended SOME, but not all, of the 1993 tax cuts. For example, the reduced tax on dividends is gone.
So now U know and will have to come up with something else.
If U have cable TV, you might be watching the documentary miniseries, "Sarah Palin's Alaska". It's great. The beauty of Sarah, inside and out, complements the beauty of the scenery.
Go Tea Party. Go Sarah.
I think we need more tax cuts to lower our deficit don't you?
The teaparty Congressman are off and running. Now we start the arduous trek back to sanity in this country.
getting a conservative to get specific is like getting a fly to catch a frog
I'd like to clarify that I don't think this bbotc guy is stupid because he is a right-wing reactionary. I don't doubt that some people who hold extreme reactionary positions are very intelligent. As we all know, intelligence and accuracy don't always go hand-in-hand. I wouldn't call Rush Limbaugh stupid even though I find so much of what he says hateful and harmful to the best interests of the US. He knows exactly what he's saying and how to say it to manipulate smaller minds, the lemmings of the right. He knows why he's saying it also -- he makes a lot of money pandering to hatred and fear. But when it comes to this bbotc, he is stupid in addition to the hateful positions he repeats. Look at the way he "debates." Not a bit of substance. He's more of a religious fanatic than a political commentator. His brand of tea-bagging is pure religion. Logic need not apply.
SoxFan: Ha Ha Ha. No substance just personal attacks. U and Alex and Ksuave, who might be the same person, are giving be beaucoup laughs.
Well your posts certainly don't prove it. I suspect it would be a stretch to say your IQ is in three digits.
You didn't need to tell me that Drunken Joe was one of your heroes.
You are obviously a man in constant need of "heroes", i.e. people who tell you what to think, people whose message panders to your fears and prejudices.
You are far more interesting from a psychological standpoint than you are from a political one.
ksuave: The article was funny. I just scrolled to the bottom. Leftie propaganda. The no-so-silent minority.
By the way, did I ever tell U that Senator Joseph McCarthy is one of my heros?
ksuave; I'm a whole lot smarter than U are, so where does that put U on the IQ scale? HA HA HA HA. Free entertainment.
Get Ready for a G.O.P. Rerun
By BOB HERBERT
You just can’t close the door on this crowd. The party that brought us the worst economy since the Great Depression, that led us into Iraq and the worst foreign policy disaster in American history, that would like to take a hammer to Social Security and a chisel to Medicare, is back in control of the House of Representatives with the expressed mission of undermining all things Obama.
Once we had Dick Cheney telling us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and belligerently asserting that deficits don’t matter. We had Phil Gramm, Enron’s favorite senator and John McCain’s economic guru, blithely assuring us in 2008 that we were suffering from a “mental recession.”
(Mr. Gramm was some piece of work. A champion of deregulation, he was disdainful of ordinary people. “We’re the only nation in the world,” he once said, “where all of our poor people are fat.”)
Maybe the voters missed the entertainment value of the hard-hearted, compulsively destructive G.O.P. headliners. Maybe they viewed them the way audiences saw the larger-than-life villains in old-time melodramas. It must be something like that because it’s awfully hard to miss the actual policies of a gang that almost wrecked the country.
In any event, the G.O.P. has taken its place once again as the House majority and is vowing to do what it does best, which is make somebody miserable — in this case, President Obama. Representative Darrell Issa, the California Republican who is now chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said recently on the Rush Limbaugh program that Mr. Obama was “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” He backed off a little on Sunday, saying that what he really thinks is that Mr. Obama is presiding over “one of the most corrupt administrations.”
This is the attitude of a man who has the power of subpoena and plans to conduct hundreds of hearings into the administration’s activities.
The mantra for Mr. Issa and the rest of the newly empowered Republicans in the House, including the new Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, is to cut spending and shrink government. But what’s really coming are patented G.O.P. efforts to spread misery beyond Mr. Obama and the Democrats to ordinary Americans struggling in what are still very difficult times.
It was ever thus. The fundamental mission of the G.O.P. is to shovel ever more money to those who are already rich. That’s why you got all that disgracefully phony rhetoric from Republicans about attacking budget deficits and embracing austerity while at the same time they were fighting like mad people to pile up the better part of a trillion dollars in new debt by extending the Bush tax cuts.
This is a party that has mastered the art of taking from the poor and the middle class and giving to the rich. We should at least be clear about this and stop being repeatedly hoodwinked — like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy’s football — by G.O.P. claims of fiscal responsibility.
There’s a reason the G.O.P. reveres Ronald Reagan and it’s not because of his fiscal probity. As Garry Wills wrote in “Reagan’s America”:
“Reagan nearly tripled the deficit in his eight years, and never made a realistic proposal for cutting it. As the biographer Lou Cannon noted, it was unfair for critics to say that Reagan was trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, since ‘he never seriously attempted to balance the budget at all.’ ”
We’ll see and hear a lot of populist foolishness from the Republicans as 2011 and 2012 unfold, but their underlying motivation is always the same. They are about making the rich richer. Thus it was not at all surprising to read on Politico that the new head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton of Michigan, had hired a former big-time lobbyist for the hospital and pharmaceuticals industries to oversee health care issues.
I remember President Bush going on television in September 2008, looking almost dazed as he said to the American people, “Our entire economy is in danger.”
Have we forgotten already who put us in such grave peril? Republicans benefit from the fact that memories are short and statutes of limitations shorter. It was the Republican leader in the House, Tom DeLay, who insisted against all reason and all the evidence of history that “nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.”
But that’s all water under the bridge. The Republicans are back in control of the House, ready to run interference for the rich as recklessly and belligerently as ever.
I just can't help but feel that you're not very bright, bbotc. You are so much more transparant than you will ever know
You talk about Latinos and illegals and roofers as if those were all the same thing.
It's typical that you define yourself as a teabagger now. Two years ago there was no such thing as the tea party movement and now that's the "we" you identify as a person as. Your a follower, bb, a cog, a puppet, a parrot. If you had a little better sense of history you would know that that you are in store for a world of disappointment.
For all the current sturm und drang, the tea party might command a whole paragraph in future history books.
ksuave: Ha, ha, ha. U took the bait. I made the "stinkin' Latino" remark to pull your chain. Why would I hate Latinos or any ethnic group for that matter? If I were Mexican and could get into this country to work to help my family, I would do it. My gripe is with the people who allow them to come here. They are exploited beyond belief.
In December, two Latinos in Maryland were killed in a fire that destroyed a very big auto repair shop. A friend of the two who were killed said they worked 15 hours a day, and one guy even slept in the place. Believe me, teaparty people would like to see those who exploit the illegals brought to justice. And we also would like to see the illegals themselves return home and reenter as guest workers. But there are people in power who don't want that to happen.
People don't join the tea party movement for racial reasons. They join to fight those in power who are destroying this country. Think trillions of debt. That alone would do it.
The problem with illegals is that those who exploit them profit at the expense of the illegals themselves and the taxpaying saps in the middle class. Not to mention the working poor.
U think the roofer, or the landscaper, or the painting company owner reports all of his revenues he makes from working and treating illegals like they are slaves? Cui bono.
Far more charges of your political ignorance and prejudice can and have been made on this board, bb, but when you say something like "Then we export the rest of the stinkin' Latinos" you have no defense from charges of racism. Of course you're a racist. It's inarguable that you are not. If declaring that an entire ethnic group stinks and that you want to drive them from the country, some of whose families have been citizens of the United States longer than your family, doesn't indelibly brand you a racist, I don't know what does.
Personally I believe there are worse things than being a racist. For instance, being, you know,a moron,for one.
I am certain that not all teabaggers are racists, but you I'm afraid are most definitely one. Man it up to it, dude.
U make me laugh. Your only line of attack is to call teapartyers and conservative racists. You are not taken seriously by us.
That's really funny, Alex.
mainstream americans... as in "people of the land... the common clave"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEdb46IrFDk
right... having racist views has nothing to do with a person's race
LMAO!
and your hero Rush Limpbone is of course not a blathering fat-ass racist either
Followers
|
3
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
545
|
Created
|
01/04/08
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderators |
[chart]static.infowars.com/2011/01/i/general/vforvictory.png[/chart]
Will we Rise?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |