Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BTW, I noticed you used wet dream and teabagger in the same sentence and then followed it up with a sentence about obama. Got something on your mind? It's just the intraweb, you can come out with it already..
It's a teabaggers wet dream, and it will never happen.
This sort of hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. I suppose it's just that I tend to have a logical mind rather than an emotional one (not always, but usually).
I constantly see these disdainful posts throwing around the term 'teabagger' as if the word is the f-bomb. These posts usually express general hatred and sometimes outright threat (as in, they all need to be rounded up and shot, etc). Let's talk about the 'teabaggers' for a minute. The teabaggers were/are a group of people who organized peaceful demonstrations to advocate their political belief. First of all, that is their constitutional right. But beyond that, these teabaggers went out of their way for the most part to keep it lawful, respectful and civilized.
Yet, you leftists act as if they marched on Washington with tanks and machine guns, killing innocent citizens, burning and looting, and generally causing mayhem. In reality, the teabaggers were/are a right-wing organized body of US citizens engaging in their right to a peaceful demonstration against an aspect of the government they do not support.
Now... let's switch gears a bit. Let's talk about the typical left-wing demonstrations of yesteryear. Probably the most famous was the Weather Underground. If you need a history lesson, here is a recap: the Weather Underground was a radical left-wing group of citizens who actually stated that their intent was the overthrow of the US government by violent means. They didn't demonstrate peacefully, they did so violently. They killed innocent people, they bombed buildings, they firebombed streets, burned and looted, etc. Don't bother denying it, I was young, but I remember much of it from the news. And many of them were armed with guns. Imagine what you lefties would say if you saw a teabagger with a gun... oh wait, we already know what you would say. And he never shot anyone with it like your buddies did.
Okay, here is the part I don't get about you lefties: Your are not outraged by groups such as the Weather Underground who were verifiably violent and murderous demonstrators supporting a cause they believed in--they are perfectly okay. Yet, you are completely outraged by the teabaggers, who peacefully demonstrated for a cause they believed in.
Here's the punchline: you are perfectly fine with demonstrations for a cause you support, be it peaceful or violent, but you wish to silence any protest for a cause, even if it's mere mention of the cause, if it's a cause you do not support. Don't deny it, because otherwise you would be just as outraged by violent left-wing protests as you are by peaceful right-wing protests.
Why the double standard? In my logical mind, you either believe in the right to protest freely and peacefully or you don't. When you ridicule one side for protesting and not the other, you are goddamned surely engaging in a double standard. You either believe in the right to peacefully demonstrate for both sides or you believe in tyranny. Which is it?
When violent demonstrations by your side are okay, but peaceful demonstrations by the other side are not, you believe in tyranny. Plain and simple.
BTW, I noticed you used wet dream and teabagger in the same sentence and then followed it up with a sentence about obama. Got something on your mind? It's just the intraweb, you can come out with it already..
I agree with your dislike for Obama as president of our country, but to be fair, having a wet dream or engaging in masturbation does not indicate sexual orientation--be it heterosexual, homosexual, or autosexual/solosexual.
Okay, here is the part I don't get about you lefties: Your are not outraged by groups such as the Weather Underground who were verifiably violent and murderous demonstrators supporting a cause they believed in--they are perfectly okay. Yet, you are completely outraged by the teabaggers, who peacefully demonstrated for a cause they believed in.
How can you possibility know how much outrage people on the left had back during the Vietnam War years over the Weather Underground group? You think we didn't fear for the violent direction our country was heading just like those on the right? You can't possibly believe that everyone one the left was out there protesting with the hippies, do you? The Weathermen were just a couple of dozen people who most of us didn't even know about until after they'd been caught and put on trial. That is in the past and was dealt with years ago. The teabaggers are current so, of course, the 'chatter' is going to be about them and not the Weathermen. I'll bet 2/3 of the people on this forum weren't even alive back during the Vietnam War years so blaming them for not being "outraged" over the Weathermen is just plain childish. It's just history to them.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 12-26-2009 at 12:30 PM..
Reason: added last two sentences
How can you possibility know how much outrage people on the left had back during the Vietnam War years over the Weather Underground group? You think we didn't fear for the violent direction our country was heading just like those on the right? You can't possibly believe that everyone one the left was out there protesting with the hippies, do you? The Weathermen were just a couple of dozen people who most of us didn't even know about until after they'd been caught and put on trial. That is in the past and was dealt with years ago. The teabaggers are current so, of course, the 'chatter' is going to be about them and not the Weathermen. I'll bet 2/3 of the people on this forum weren't even alive back during the Vietnam War years so blaming them for not being "outraged" over the Weathermen is just plain childish. It's just history to them.
The weathermen were just one group of many. There were violent street marches and campus riots all over the place. You are deflecting the question (with the insult "childish" -- typical tactic for the left).
Here is the heart of it: why is it okay (I'm not speaking for everyone, there are always exceptions) with the left (in general) to protest a point they believe in but not okay for those with opposing views to protest their beliefs?
You might say it's okay with you, but I see the same snide bull**** on this forum all the time. I am not a liberal; I am not a conservative. I do not agree with either philosophy, other than bits and pieces of each. Yet, I ENCOURAGE everyone to voice their own beliefs. I would never silence anyone. I may not agree with them, but they have as much right as I do to voice their opinion without being ridiculed.
I will say this: not being a democrat or republican, I've always had my own views about things. However, over the past couple of years, I have found myself siding with conservatives far more often, mainly because of the clear hypocrisy and double talk from the left (don't tell me there is none; I can point out so many it'll make your head swim). It seems to me the left is only interested in restricting free agency. That is diametrically opposed to my philosophy. So even though I agree with about 10% of what the republicans have to say, at LEAST they still support free agency/freedom, even if it's minuscule, there is a bit of support for freedom. I'm actually closest to libertarian; unfortunately anything other than two rancid parties are quickly squashed in this society. We have two sucky choices. They all need to go and we need to start over--freedom being the cornerstone.
The weathermen were just one group of many. There were violent street marches and campus riots all over the place. You are deflecting the question (with the insult "childish" -- typical tactic for the left).
Here is the heart of it: why is it okay (I'm not speaking for everyone, there are always exceptions) with the left (in general) to protest a point they believe in but not okay for those with opposing views to protest their beliefs?
You might say it's okay with you, but I see the same snide bull**** on this forum all the time. I am not a liberal; I am not a conservative. I do not agree with either philosophy, other than bits and pieces of each. Yet, I ENCOURAGE everyone to voice their own beliefs. I would never silence anyone. I may not agree with them, but they have as much right as I do to voice their opinion without being ridiculed.
I will say this: not being a democrat or republican, I've always had my own views about things. However, over the past couple of years, I have found myself siding with conservatives far more often, mainly because of the clear hypocrisy and double talk from the left (don't tell me there is none; I can point out so many it'll make your head swim). It seems to me the left is only interested in restricting free agency. That is diametrically opposed to my philosophy. So even though I agree with about 10% of what the republicans have to say, at LEAST they still support free agency/freedom, even if it's minuscule, there is a bit of support for freedom. I'm actually closest to libertarian; unfortunately anything other than two rancid parties are quickly squashed in this society. We have two sucky choices. They all need to go and we need to start over--freedom being the cornerstone.
The GOP still supports free agency/freedom??? What?? Many of them want to turn this country into a full throttle theocracy...
The GOP still supports free agency/freedom??? What?? Many of them want to turn this country into a full throttle theocracy...
With all due respect, I think many of 'you' (yes, I know I'm generalizing again, and that there are exceptions) are just christophobic. I'm not religious (in an organized religion sense), but I am all for everyone believing as they wish, whether I agree or not. It's not all about me. I just don't see theocracy being jammed down anyone's throat. Freedom of religion is not the same as a theocracy. And, seriously, if such ridiculously obvious 'rules' like 'thou shall not kill' and 'thou shall not steal' are so offensive to you, I just don't know what to say. They are part of our civil laws anyway. Is that what you mean by theocracy? You'd rather abolish those sorts of laws? No thanks.
quote=nononsenseguy;11813530]The oath of office, to my knowledge, does not include any reference to a specific term.
She was right to quit, and thinking people understand the reasons which she gave.
You liberals, people like yourself, drove her out, and did it on purpose, out of hatred.
She quit because, as she said, she was spending 80% of her time fighting all the frivolous lawsuits brought by liberal groups and individuals (people like you). This was at great expense not only to Alaskans, but to her personally.
Because of this burden on her personal finances, and the need to deal with that, coupled with the requests she was receiving to speak (which pays well, in case you haven't noticed), which could provide the means to pay those expenses, she had to weigh that option against completing her term of office.
She said that she had considered remaining for the rest of her term (but you probably never heard that part of the announcement she made — that's called "selective listening"; most liberals have that problem) but to do so would be unfair to Alaskans, and her family, who were also suffering under the burden of the relentless attacks by the left (people like you), who were even going after her family members with smear campaigns, including her young daughter (dispicable attacks, but that's what you people do. Have you no shame?).
Finally, she said she felt she could be of greater service to the American people and that she felt she was being pulled in that direction; that there was a greater roll for her in the service of the entire country, to restore our freedom, and our liberty. She felt that there was more meaningful work that she could be a part of.
In view of all these things, I think she made the right choice. There is no reason to criticize her for it, except to take some cheap shot like the one you made, which liberals like yourself will always do when they get the chance.
These constant attacks on her, by you and others, are the "Alinskey method": Pick your target, isolate it, marginalize, ridicule, etc. until destroyed.
But we know the game now. We on the right are learnig. What the left does and how they do it is perfectly clear now. Most of us now also know about Cloward and Piven. We now have the knowledge of the left to know how to fight back, and fight back we will, till liberas are once again defeated (we hope finally for all time), and freedom and liberty, and prosperity, will be once again secure.
Socialism, communism, and Marxism have been tried and retried over and over again. They have always failed.
Well said, NoNonsenseGuy!
"They" must fear her immensely and their pathetic, juvenile bashing of her, just confirms how strong their fear really is to some of us.
I would love to see Sarah Palin run for POTUS on a third party ticket and WIN, but this isn't a likely scenario as long as strong party loyalty to either the Dems or Pubs. continues.
Otherwise....it's a wasted vote and one which could surely result in sucking enough votes away from one of the other 2...(lesser evil...Dem or Pub) that one could otherwise, possibly be content with.....if nothing else.
But......often times it isn't even the lesser of those 2 evils who gets elected.....just the MOST evil one, it appears.
Democracy.......my ass!
If the puppet isn't what the "entity" (the REAL govt.)..wants for America......the puppet won't be elected, one way or another.
Right now......they have "their" puppet in place that obviously shares the same vision of what "they" desire America to be......and it's sad.
So....I highly doubt that you will EVER see the likes of Palin...as our POTUS.....since her ideology and belief of what is the best direction for this nation is just the opposite of what "they" want.
Socialist.....and preferably, Communist IS....WHAT this entity must truly desire for America.
I doubt Palin will ever run for a national position. It was probably a dare when JM picked her. JM lost the bet. LOL
Regardless of what people think of our president Mr. Obama, he is a very well educated man.
Being well-educated is only a part of what is needed in a leader. I'm well-educated. So what? You probably are too. And? There have been many well-educated men and woman who ended up terrorizing their subjects. In fact, every monarch who ruled in Europe through the middle ages was very well-educated. How many of them turned out to be truly just and noble leaders? A handful. There is more to it than being well-educated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
