Gene363
Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:38:34 AM

Quit being suckas.

This whole "class warfare" nonsense is a bunch of BS. It's all smoke and mirrors. By both sides.

"High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates -- or perhaps any taxes at all. What is worse than class warfare is phony class warfare. Slippery talk about 'fairness' is at the heart of this fraud by politicians seeking to squander more of the nation's resources." --economist Thomas Sowell.

borndead1 wrote:

So you are saying the politicians (bought and paid for) are NOT going to get me my free stuff? W T F !!! [sarcasm]

skin3300
Sunday, February 26, 2012 11:16:45 AM
Once again the conversation is reduced to my party is better than yours. It's this kind of senseless Rah Rah additude that is going to bring America to its knees. This isn't pro sports folks. Your playing into the hands Of both parties. As long as your fighting they win. If we could ever agree they would be is serious trouble. And they would have to actually do the job instead of stealing from us at e very turn.But that's not going to happen so long as you drink the Koll Aid...
skin3300
Sunday, February 26, 2012 11:17:43 AM
Kool Aid even lol
tailgater
Sunday, February 26, 2012 11:19:11 AM

You were able to predict I was going to make fun of you? Wow, what talent. You Kreskin? How could anyone have predicted that move on my part?

You're ridiculous.

FuzzNJ wrote:

When you can't defend, deflect deflect deflect.

Obama doesn't even WANT to be the president for those who are conservative.

He repeatedly calls the republicans "them".

He has tried repeatedly to divide the country.

But instead of discussing this on the thread that was designated for such discussion, you resort to name calling.

Bravo.

You're nothing, if not consistent.

FuzzNJ
Sunday, February 26, 2012 11:40:20 AM

When you can't defend, deflect deflect deflect.

Obama doesn't even WANT to be the president for those who are conservative.

He repeatedly calls the republicans "them".

He has tried repeatedly to divide the country.

But instead of discussing this on the thread that was designated for such discussion, you resort to name calling.

Bravo.

You're nothing, if not consistent.

tailgater wrote:

lol. Defend? I have already stated my opinion, no need to keep repeating it like you are.

And name calling? Where? When I called you ridiculous? Oh get me my fainting couch, I'm getting the vapors.

Listen. Your inability to see that 'your side' is guilty of the very same thing you are outraged about is ridiculous. That is my position, nothing to defend or continue arguing about. Until you are capable of taking down the blinders of partisan bias, there is nothing to talk about.

tailgater
Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:58:10 PM

Listen. Your inability to see that 'your side' is guilty of the very same thing you are outraged about is ridiculous. That is my position, nothing to defend or continue arguing about. Until you are capable of taking down the blinders of partisan bias, there is nothing to talk about.

FuzzNJ wrote:

You keep saying that my side is guilty of the same.

But they are not.

Hell, that's the premise of my initial post.

This president, BHO, is the ONLY one in my adult life that has resorted to these tactics (outside of the aforementioned campaign trail).

Your example of Bush's "with us or against us" has already been dismissed since his target audience (those against us) were not the American taxpayers, nor the democratic members of congress. This is not a minor difference.

You're tenacious. I'll give you that.

But it grows tiresome when you ignore the specifics.

And maybe you can find one or two examples. It proves nothing when compared to the CONSTANT barrage spewed forth by Obama. He is well into his third year, and virtually every one of his speeches point fingers and divide the country. And maybe you agree with him. Fine. But it doesn't change the truth in my first post.

FuzzNJ
Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:58:18 PM

And maybe you can find one or two examples.

tailgater wrote:

Small town 'real' American values. Liberal 'Elites'. Ivory tower liberals. Educated are brainwashed, we are the 'real' Americans. The liberals 'hate' 'flyover' country. Liberals are Communist/Terrorists/Socialists/pussi$s/weak. /etc. . . Don't know how you missed it, but that's been going on for as long as I can remember.

Gene363
Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:22:48 PM

...Educated are brainwashed...

FuzzNJ wrote:

Double back implied insult.

stogiejones
Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:35:11 PM
he's from illinois.... and he's not behind bars yet! 🐴
yardobeef
Monday, February 27, 2012 12:15:20 AM
From Illinois?
DrMaddVibe
Monday, February 27, 2012 6:53:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
tailgater
Monday, February 27, 2012 9:21:53 AM

Small town 'real' American values. Liberal 'Elites'. Ivory tower liberals. Educated are brainwashed, we are the 'real' Americans. The liberals 'hate' 'flyover' country. Liberals are Communist/Terrorists/Socialists/pussi$s/weak. /etc. . . Don't know how you missed it, but that's been going on for as long as I can remember.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Your examples above are weak at best.

A true comparison would be if Obama was attacking the Religious Right.

But I'm not talking about that.

Nor am I talking about the MEDIA (your "liberals are communist, etc" quote above is not a presidential quote).

I imagine that you'll go hide your head now that Obama has proved my point beyond any reasonable doubt with his Blacks for Obama campaign.

FuzzNJ
Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48:23 AM

Your examples above are weak at best.

A true comparison would be if Obama was attacking the Religious Right.

But I'm not talking about that.

Nor am I talking about the MEDIA (your "liberals are communist, etc" quote above is not a presidential quote).

I imagine that you'll go hide your head now that Obama has proved my point beyond any reasonable doubt with his Blacks for Obama campaign.

tailgater wrote:

Of course. It's all totally different.

So now voter outreach is sinister? You don't see Republicans target voting blocks like Spanish speaking people with ads in Spanish, or ads on Christian radio with religious messages, etc.?

Again, your unreasonable bias is making you unable to see your hypocrisy.

DrMaddVibe
Monday, February 27, 2012 11:16:12 AM

Again, your unreasonable bias is making you unable to see your hypocrisy.

FuzzNJ wrote:

No, I'm pretty sure it's your inability to make a valid point!

tailgater
Monday, February 27, 2012 12:13:18 PM

Of course. It's all totally different.

So now voter outreach is sinister? You don't see Republicans target voting blocks like Spanish speaking people with ads in Spanish, or ads on Christian radio with religious messages, etc.?

Again, your unreasonable bias is making you unable to see your hypocrisy.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Too bad your arms aren't longer, because you're really reaching on this one, Fuzz.

But it's not your fault.

How could any of us have known that Obama himself would make my point during the course of our debate?