That didn't sound right.ptschram said:
What i meant was, a candidate's nice tits don't influence my VOTE.
Nice tits influence me in other ways, but not at the ballot box.
heh heh.
i said "box".
A non-suck Republican Candidate...?
- Thread starter knewsom
- Start date
What i meant was, a candidate's nice tits don't influence my VOTE.
Nice tits influence me in other ways, but not at the ballot box.
heh heh.
i said "box".
Mike_Rupp said:
You named four senior officials out of how many? You answered your own question...like them or not, they were all tokens. Qualified or not they were tokens.
Added:1 in 435 when you control the majority in the house is not even close to the demographic, it is after all the house of REPRESENTATIVES and should reflect the demographics of the country if it is not being gerrymandered to death.
Last edited:
landrovered said:
Your interpretation is strictly opinion and appears to me your way of self justifying why Herman Cain is a living breathing individual and that he actually exists on planet earth. You also must justify your political opinions of Republicans (and now the grass roots Tea Party movement) in order to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy inside. Pathetic....
brian4d said:
Vote for anyone you want, just don't try to tell me that the GOP represents all of the electorate just because they have found one black man to run for president. This is the same crap as making Steele head of the GOP right after Obama was elected. It was done for appearance sake not for substance. If the GOP wanted to be truthful they would run Cheney, he is the face of the real GOP.
Whether it was intended as a joke or not, it is very telling.landrovered said:
Most liberal friends I have DO consider themselves intellectually superior to conservatives. And this is why it is futile to argue with them - they simply dismiss the opponents as not smart enough to be in the game.
Peter you skipped right over my map comments and went retrograde.
Conservatives are not dumb, they are conservative which means they do not like change or new things. They want things to be the way they have always been which by their definition was better. The further you go back the happier they are.
I am a progressive, I think things will get better if we embrace change and the future. I think that we can tackle the tough problems in the world and that we should include other folks in our power elite. I believe that our best days are to come and that progress is a good thing. We learn from the past, we do not live to re-create it.
See, no IQ comparisons needed.
Conservatives are not dumb, they are conservative which means they do not like change or new things. They want things to be the way they have always been which by their definition was better. The further you go back the happier they are.
I am a progressive, I think things will get better if we embrace change and the future. I think that we can tackle the tough problems in the world and that we should include other folks in our power elite. I believe that our best days are to come and that progress is a good thing. We learn from the past, we do not live to re-create it.
See, no IQ comparisons needed.
For me it's gone far beyond our outdated two party system. Both Parties have failed the American people. Those who still constantly sit around, point fingers and play the blame game are not helping but in fact hurting. Those who blame the Tea party consisting of fed up Republicans and Democrats are ignorant and/or fear of the movement. As stated above, I don't give two shits what color your skin is, we just have to get this county back on track. Most importantly this includes our Economy and general State of our Union. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to realize Obama's policies have failed and are continuing to fail. If Bush could have been elected to a 3rd term I'd show him the save love and affection as I do Obama.landrovered said:
Last edited:
ptschram said:
I can't afford to run for any major office. ...can you? The only ones who can do so effectively are either extremely wealthy or backed by major corporate interests and super-PACs. You don't see a problem with that?
p m said:
Boy, that sure sounds familiar... I could swear I remember something a lot like what you're talking about happening very recently here on D-Web, 'cept the other way around (not referring to you, but another conservative we were speaking with).
So, there's 1 black representative out of 435 representatives for the whole country.landrovered said:
As I said before, there were no black candidates on my ballot.
Not a lot can be done about that.
If there had been 1 or more black candidates running for each of those 435 seats, the outcome may have been different.
Gerrymandering is a both-sides-of-the-aisle technique.
What about the "all D all the time" districts?
Is there only 1 in the entire country that could be counted on to vote "the right way"?
Why did all those white democrats get elected instead of the more appropriate black democrats?
Whether or not those 4 senior officials were tokens is not a foregone conclusion.
Have you considered that, in the opinion of the person appointing them, all the senior officials were the best qualified for their particular positions?
Did your lord and savior, Obama, select all black people for cabinet positions?
No?
Oh my GOD! He must be a racist! That BASTARD!
As far as I know, there is NOT a cabinet position for "black".
If there were, then, yes, any random black person would have been qualified for the role.
Supreme Court justices are chosen from a pool of judges, not from the people who shop at 7-11 down the street.
Are there more white judges than black judges?
I think so.
Is 1 out of however many Supremes reflective of the available pool of candidates?
That may well be the case.
Does the number of judges in the country mirror the percentages of black, brown, green, blue population?
Probably not.
Should we "fix" this?
Probably not.
You want to vote for a person based on skin color?
Whatever, dipshit.
You, all enlightened, voting for a black man, to right whatever social wrongs you perceive, is just as stupid as a white guy only voting for a white guy.
You're both racists.
But I bet the white guy who only votes "white" is willing to admit it, whereas you need to point out to the world that WE are racists, because we don't do what you do.
ptschram
Well-known member
knewsom said:
WAAH! It's too expensive to run for office! If you don't try, you're guaranteed to not be successful at it.
I got 1238 votes for Sheriff as a Libertarian and only spent $100.
I got 28% of a three-way race for city council and spent nothing.
I took the liberty to strip the propaganda sentences from both definitions. The rest means only the difference in opinions on settings of the global "control loop" of the society.landrovered said:
A large part of my work is writing software. Every time I come across something I [now] think was dumb of me to do in the past, I rush to fix it and field my solution. And most of the time, the solution does not get fielded until much later - after more or less comprehensive testing; as much as it frustrates me, testers do find unintended consequences. At the same time, I may swing to a different solution myself if I wisen up to see a larger, or different picture.
So, dialectically speaking, "conservatives" are just as important to the society as "reformists."
Now, diatribe over, I stand by the statement that you DO consider the "conservatives" less smart than you are. Now you are backpedalling, as you have done in the past in discussions on racial subjects.
Speaking of your map comment, I was about to post on this subject that one has to be fucked up badly in the head to even have an association chain leading from mathematical or/and geographical subject to something political, but decided against it. Now you have it.
ptschram
Well-known member
jim-00-4.6 said:
In Indiana, you can run for judge without a law degree. If you're 18, not a felon, and a registered voter, you too can be a judge (but not me, my wife won't let me run for judge).
You guys are getting easier and easier to pimp because you are scared to death that Obama will be re-elected. With the candidates you have so far , I would be scared too if I were you.
And yes I do think myself smarter than the other Walmart shoppers I run in to most of the time... because fat, mad and stupid is no way to go through life. If this fits you then you may be offended, I don't care.
Signing off now.
And yes I do think myself smarter than the other Walmart shoppers I run in to most of the time... because fat, mad and stupid is no way to go through life. If this fits you then you may be offended, I don't care.
Signing off now.
You must work for the Federal Government because you don't seem concerned about our our county and state of the economy. Personally I'm not scared that Obama will be reelected, I'm scared for my county in general.landrovered said:
Last edited:
ptschram said:
That's awesome PT! Starting out small is the way to go - City Council, etc... Definitely helps get towards the bigger offices. But then after you've hopscotched from office to office in progression, don't you run the risk of becoming a career politician?
Get Us Some Jobs! Unemployment Main Topic At CBC Forum
A couple little tidbits for you to chew on Scott:
Black unemployment is at 17%, which is the highest it's been in 27 years.
Black people's "strongly favorable" view of the President has fallen from 83% to 58%.
While you somehow associate having a black man in office with representing the interests of black people, it is anything but. Cheney/Bush did represent the interests of black people more so than Obama does. Obama's policies are directly responsible for more black people being out of work than when Bush/Cheney were in office.
While you might have swallowed the kool-aid, apparently black people haven't. They now realize that Obama has hurt black people, not helped them.
A couple little tidbits for you to chew on Scott:
Black unemployment is at 17%, which is the highest it's been in 27 years.
Black people's "strongly favorable" view of the President has fallen from 83% to 58%.
While you somehow associate having a black man in office with representing the interests of black people, it is anything but. Cheney/Bush did represent the interests of black people more so than Obama does. Obama's policies are directly responsible for more black people being out of work than when Bush/Cheney were in office.
While you might have swallowed the kool-aid, apparently black people haven't. They now realize that Obama has hurt black people, not helped them.
Mike,
So... you want Cain so that black folks will vote for him or because he is the best and the brightest the GOP has to offer?
4 years ago Bush was in the oval office looking like a deer in the headlights, calling McCain and Obama into meetings to explain what a shit sandwich he had made for them and how he was really sorry but he had to go. Yes the Bush/Cheney policies are something to hang you hats on. I would pursue that line of thinking as far as you can take it.
Clinton was the best president the black man ever had and BTW I hated his guts every second he was in office.
The GOP has done nothing to aid the economic recovery, the party of "no" is equally responsible for the double dip as the Dems.
So... you want Cain so that black folks will vote for him or because he is the best and the brightest the GOP has to offer?
4 years ago Bush was in the oval office looking like a deer in the headlights, calling McCain and Obama into meetings to explain what a shit sandwich he had made for them and how he was really sorry but he had to go. Yes the Bush/Cheney policies are something to hang you hats on. I would pursue that line of thinking as far as you can take it.
Clinton was the best president the black man ever had and BTW I hated his guts every second he was in office.
The GOP has done nothing to aid the economic recovery, the party of "no" is equally responsible for the double dip as the Dems.
Mike_Rupp said:
If you would please be so kind...state any example of where Bush/Cheney did anything to represent any interests except their own. And by 'own' I mean the wealthiest 1 or 2% - those that Bush referred to as "my base" - along with their crony corporate contributors. (Throughout his entire term, Cheney continued to receive "deferred compensation" from Haliburton, the biggest recipient federal largesse during our little adventure in Iraq.) While you are at it, give an example where Bush/Cheney - or the current GOP, for that matter - has done anything beneficial for the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office reports that between 1979 and 2005 (latest figures available) income for middle income families rose by 21% - that's less than one percent per year. Yet for the top 1%, income rose by 480%. Numerically, a six-fold increase. And when Obama or the Dems propose minor increases on taxes on the wealthiest, these whiney bitches scream "class warfare." If anything, it is the other way around.
ptschram said:
PT .... are you sure ???? There are some city and town courts where the judge does not have to be an ATTORNEY, but from what I read, you still need the law degree.
apg said:
From my earlier post: "Black unemployment is at 17%, which is the highest it's been in 27 years."
Honestly, set aside your whole Bush / Cheney / Halliburton / Military Industrial Complex rhetoric for a second. Think about the fact that black unemployment has grown to record levels since Obama took over. The simple fact is that things have become much worse for black people during the Obama Presidency. The whole "spread the wealth" ideology hasn't worked out well has it?
What is also undeniable is that black people have completely changed their opinion of Obama. Black people were absolutely loyal to Obama at the beginning of his Presidency. To be honest, I can't really blame them. They thought that he'd have their backs. Things have changed and now, like I mentioned earlier, their support for him is falling rapidly.