I need a name for these kind of people

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

Democrats don't own anything just as Republicans don't either. By your logic, Republicans are responsible for the abject level of poverty in the South.

The fact is, the problems in the inner city are a problem for those in that area. Blacks vote for Democrats for the same general reasons businesses vote for Republicans. By your other dumb logic, then it is the republicans fault that the tax system is so skewed for the benefit of businesses. Compared to Western Europe, America is teetering on a social crisis.

Again, my general thoughts on the poor southerner continually voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them strikes me as odd. I find it odd that these poor southerners are more afraid of gays and women having abortions than the welfare of their own families. At the end of the day, a person should be more worried about his own family than what other people do with their bodies. The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

Last time I checked, Mr McGreevy wasn't actively trying to inhibit the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Oh, and those cases were the ones that just came to my mind. I'm sure there are countless others.

No... that wasn't your question. Your question was...

What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

Certainly Mary Cheney hasn't actively campaigned against gays. Or was she doing that while tring to have a baby with her lover?

McGreevy fits perfectly into that mold. His public persona was as a loyal husband and father. All the while he was handing out BJs to random guys at truck stops and rest areas. Are you really trying to say that he had no inner conflict with that? Good lord...

He's a perfect fit for your list. But, since he's not a Republican, and therefore throws your troll off its intended target, you chose to ignore him and continue to do so.

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you'll put him on your list.

Like I said, these people may be on the fringe of society (and nmay have other conflicts), but the ones I mentioned specifically are those that are publicly AGAINST the actions they do in private. Again, Mc.Greevy was never anti-gay. Besides, there are quite a few men that have wives but sexually attracted to other men. If they were actively suppressing the rights of homosexuals, they would be on my list.

:roll:

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

Last time I checked, Mr McGreevy wasn't actively trying to inhibit the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Oh, and those cases were the ones that just came to my mind. I'm sure there are countless others.

No... that wasn't your question. Your question was...

What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

Certainly Mary Cheney hasn't actively campaigned against gays. Or was she doing that while tring to have a baby with her lover?

McGreevy fits perfectly into that mold. His public persona was as a loyal husband and father. All the while he was handing out BJs to random guys at truck stops and rest areas. Are you really trying to say that he had no inner conflict with that? Good lord...

He's a perfect fit for your list. But, since he's not a Republican, and therefore throws your troll off its intended target, you chose to ignore him and continue to do so.

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you'll put him on your list.

Like I said, these people may be on the fringe of society (and nmay have other conflicts), but the ones I mentioned specifically are those that are publicly AGAINST the actions they do in private. Again, Mc.Greevy was never anti-gay. Besides, there are quite a few men that have wives but sexually attracted to other men. If they were actively suppressing the rights of homosexuals, they would be on my list.

:roll:

END of this debate for you

 

[Termagant]

They're called self-haters.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

I think I see what you're saying. It's like rich people who tell others to consume less energy and have fewer things, while they traipse around the world in private jets and own mansions that are ten times the size of your average American's home.

Oh wait, those aren't Republicans. Remind me again, which kind of hypocrites are those?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

Pardon while I digress from the question you pose, but I would say to vote Republican maybe many among this group wish the alternative to big-government authoritarian Reps weren't big-government authoritarian Dems who give morale and absolute equivalency to the western world and the most evil of human enslavement and abuse found in other countries.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

Last time I checked, Mr McGreevy wasn't actively trying to inhibit the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Oh, and those cases were the ones that just came to my mind. I'm sure there are countless others.

No... that wasn't your question. Your question was...

What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

Certainly Mary Cheney hasn't actively campaigned against gays. Or was she doing that while tring to have a baby with her lover?

McGreevy fits perfectly into that mold. His public persona was as a loyal husband and father. All the while he was handing out BJs to random guys at truck stops and rest areas. Are you really trying to say that he had no inner conflict with that? Good lord...

He's a perfect fit for your list. But, since he's not a Republican, and therefore throws your troll off its intended target, you chose to ignore him and continue to do so.

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you'll put him on your list.

Like I said, these people may be on the fringe of society (and nmay have other conflicts), but the ones I mentioned specifically are those that are publicly AGAINST the actions they do in private. Again, Mc.Greevy was never anti-gay. Besides, there are quite a few men that have wives but sexually attracted to other men. If they were actively suppressing the rights of homosexuals, they would be on my list.

:roll:

END of this debate for you

Was it really a debate? I presented logic and you kept changing the parameters. I'd call it more like trying (and failing) to get an idelogue to open his mind and see the world as it is. But that's not you. In your mind your team can do no wrong. If Jim McGreevy doesn't qualify for you as someone who presented a public persona while living an entirely different life, someone who lived daily in deep personal conflict, then you'll never be able to participate in any discussion more complicated than "Democrats Good... Republicans Bad..."

I actually kind of feel sorry for you.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Narmer
The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

I think I see what you're saying. It's like rich people who tell others to consume less energy and have fewer things, while they traipse around the world in private jets and own mansions that are ten times the size of your average American's home.

Oh wait, those aren't Republicans. Remind me again, which kind of hypocrites are those?

They are hypocrites as well, but their hypocrisy is very general. The ones I mentioned are extra special.

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Narmer
Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

Pardon while I digress from the question you pose, but I would say to vote Republican maybe many among this group wish the alternative to big-government authoritarian Reps weren't big-government authoritarian Dems who give morale and absolute equivalency to the western world and the most evil of human enslavement and abuse found in other countries.

If you think the current republicans are for small government, then you're completely tuned out.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

Last time I checked, Mr McGreevy wasn't actively trying to inhibit the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Oh, and those cases were the ones that just came to my mind. I'm sure there are countless others.

No... that wasn't your question. Your question was...

What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

Certainly Mary Cheney hasn't actively campaigned against gays. Or was she doing that while tring to have a baby with her lover?

McGreevy fits perfectly into that mold. His public persona was as a loyal husband and father. All the while he was handing out BJs to random guys at truck stops and rest areas. Are you really trying to say that he had no inner conflict with that? Good lord...

He's a perfect fit for your list. But, since he's not a Republican, and therefore throws your troll off its intended target, you chose to ignore him and continue to do so.

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you'll put him on your list.

Like I said, these people may be on the fringe of society (and nmay have other conflicts), but the ones I mentioned specifically are those that are publicly AGAINST the actions they do in private. Again, Mc.Greevy was never anti-gay. Besides, there are quite a few men that have wives but sexually attracted to other men. If they were actively suppressing the rights of homosexuals, they would be on my list.

:roll:

END of this debate for you

Was it really a debate? I presented logic and you kept changing the parameters. I'd call it more like trying (and failing) to get an idelogue to open his mind and see the world as it is. But that's not you. In your mind your team can do no wrong. If Jim McGreevy doesn't qualify for you as someone who presented a public persona while living an entirely different life, someone who lived daily in deep personal conflict, then you'll never be able to participate in any discussion more complicated than "Democrats Good... Republicans Bad..."

I actually kind of feel sorry for you.

I'm on no team if you've ever read my posts in this forum.

As mentioned earlier, Mr McGreevy never was against the rights of gays. You seem to have a hard time understanding that. The conflict I mentioned is far deeper than keeping secrets from your family or the public. These people condemned the very people they are or associate with (via policy). How difficult is that for you to understand?

EDIT: If you can show me one quote where Mr McGreevy was publicly against gays I will add him to my list and say I was wrong, OK?

 

[piasabird]

So you feel you need to hate some people so you want a name to demonize them?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So you feel you need to hate some people so you want a name to demonize them?

Hate? You need to hate, not me, Buddy.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: piasabird
So you feel you need to hate some people so you want a name to demonize them?

Hate? You need to hate, not me, Buddy.

Well, you're not trying to put a label on them because you love them. Just call them what they are... deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues. (Except Mary Cheney... Not sure how she fits into your list)

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: piasabird
So you feel you need to hate some people so you want a name to demonize them?

Hate? You need to hate, not me, Buddy.

I can't believe you are here asking for names and labels. I recall you going on a bit of a tirade about the "label/name" of "The War on Terror" and how labelling things makes you fall into a trap of your enemies. But seen as this fits your agenda I guess it is ok to label eh?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regarding special case #2- People who are poor sometimes have other considerations than their income. Sometimes they have belief contrary to a particular party or philosophy. Not everyone agrees that a fetus is just tissue. If they believe that abortion is morally wrong and feel strongly so, then they aren't going to vote for people who espouse that idea. To be sure some swallow the bait regarding terrorism etc, however to paint with too broad a brush would be a mistake. Sometimes it isnt just about money.

Well put.

To the OP, maybe some poor who vote GOP are actually looking beyond self-interest, towards what they consider to be in the best interest of the nation as a whole?

Is that too shocking to believe?

I think people voting *only* in their self-interest is what brought us to our current point.

Yes, it is.

How has putting the Corporations and the Republicans/Clergy in control of the country been in the best interest of the nation?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

Democrats don't own anything just as Republicans don't either. By your logic, Republicans are responsible for the abject level of poverty in the South.

The fact is, the problems in the inner city are a problem for those in that area.

Wouldn't that same logic hold true for the poor southerners?

Blacks vote for Democrats for the same general reasons businesses vote for Republicans. By your other dumb logic, then it is the republicans fault that the tax system is so skewed for the benefit of businesses. Compared to Western Europe, America is teetering on a social crisis.

Again, my general thoughts on the poor southerner continually voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them strikes me as odd. I find it odd that these poor southerners are more afraid of gays and women having abortions than the welfare of their own families.

Yea, and I find it odd that the poor people in the city keep voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them, especially when their conditions aren't improving, but getting worse. I find it odd that these poor urbanites are more afraid of the evil racist Republicans that would throw them back into slaver the first chance they got then the welfare of their own families.

At the end of the day, a person should be more worried about his own family than what other people do with their bodies. The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

Intersting, wasn't it recently noted that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats? Looks like its not just the big bad racist Republicans that fall into the DO AS i SAY NOT AS I DO crowd.

See the bold above.

BTW, you ignored my question, "Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?"

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

Democrats don't own anything just as Republicans don't either. By your logic, Republicans are responsible for the abject level of poverty in the South.

The fact is, the problems in the inner city are a problem for those in that area.

Wouldn't that same logic hold true for the poor southerners?

Blacks vote for Democrats for the same general reasons businesses vote for Republicans. By your other dumb logic, then it is the republicans fault that the tax system is so skewed for the benefit of businesses. Compared to Western Europe, America is teetering on a social crisis.

Again, my general thoughts on the poor southerner continually voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them strikes me as odd. I find it odd that these poor southerners are more afraid of gays and women having abortions than the welfare of their own families.

Yea, and I find it odd that the poor people in the city keep voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them, especially when their conditions aren't improving, but getting worse. I find it odd that these poor urbanites are more afraid of the evil racist Republicans that would throw them back into slaver the first chance they got then the welfare of their own families.

At the end of the day, a person should be more worried about his own family than what other people do with their bodies. The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

Intersting, wasn't it recently noted that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats? Looks like its not just the big bad racist Republicans that fall into the DO AS i SAY NOT AS I DO crowd.

See the bold above.

BTW, you ignored my question, "Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?"

Your bolded statements are simple repetations of what I said. There is no general belief in the African American community that Republicans are racist.

As for giving to charity, giving on Sunday and taking on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday doesn't sound like much to me. In fact, I'm guessing that Republicans also go to church more than democrats, right? Well, if that's the case, then it explains this as well: On the one hand, they talk against abortions while on the other they are killing those who are for it. On the on hand they go on and on about compassion while on the other hand they kill prisoners and start and support wars. The conflicts within must be turbalent.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

Democrats don't own anything just as Republicans don't either. By your logic, Republicans are responsible for the abject level of poverty in the South.

The fact is, the problems in the inner city are a problem for those in that area.

Wouldn't that same logic hold true for the poor southerners?

Blacks vote for Democrats for the same general reasons businesses vote for Republicans. By your other dumb logic, then it is the republicans fault that the tax system is so skewed for the benefit of businesses. Compared to Western Europe, America is teetering on a social crisis.

Again, my general thoughts on the poor southerner continually voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them strikes me as odd. I find it odd that these poor southerners are more afraid of gays and women having abortions than the welfare of their own families.

Yea, and I find it odd that the poor people in the city keep voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them, especially when their conditions aren't improving, but getting worse. I find it odd that these poor urbanites are more afraid of the evil racist Republicans that would throw them back into slaver the first chance they got then the welfare of their own families.

At the end of the day, a person should be more worried about his own family than what other people do with their bodies. The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

Intersting, wasn't it recently noted that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats? Looks like its not just the big bad racist Republicans that fall into the DO AS i SAY NOT AS I DO crowd.

See the bold above.

BTW, you ignored my question, "Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?"

Your bolded statements are simple repetations of what I said. There is no general belief in the African American community that Republicans are racist.

As for giving to charity, giving on Sunday and taking on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday doesn't sound like much to me. In fact, I'm guessing that Republicans also go to church more than democrats, right? Well, if that's the case, then it explains this as well: On the one hand, they talk against abortions while on the other they are killing those who are for it. On the on hand they go on and on about compassion while on the other hand they kill prisoners and start and support wars. The conflicts within must be turbalent.

You apparently love to steriotype. How many abortion clinic bombers have there been in the past 30 years? Now compare that to the population of christian conservatives?

And I wouldnt get too crazy about the church attendence theory either. Catholics vote democrat, and catholics are one of the biggest, if not the biggest voting bloc in this country.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

Democrats don't own anything just as Republicans don't either. By your logic, Republicans are responsible for the abject level of poverty in the South.

The fact is, the problems in the inner city are a problem for those in that area.

Wouldn't that same logic hold true for the poor southerners?

Blacks vote for Democrats for the same general reasons businesses vote for Republicans. By your other dumb logic, then it is the republicans fault that the tax system is so skewed for the benefit of businesses. Compared to Western Europe, America is teetering on a social crisis.

Again, my general thoughts on the poor southerner continually voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them strikes me as odd. I find it odd that these poor southerners are more afraid of gays and women having abortions than the welfare of their own families.

Yea, and I find it odd that the poor people in the city keep voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them, especially when their conditions aren't improving, but getting worse. I find it odd that these poor urbanites are more afraid of the evil racist Republicans that would throw them back into slaver the first chance they got then the welfare of their own families.

At the end of the day, a person should be more worried about his own family than what other people do with their bodies. The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

Intersting, wasn't it recently noted that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats? Looks like its not just the big bad racist Republicans that fall into the DO AS i SAY NOT AS I DO crowd.

See the bold above.

BTW, you ignored my question, "Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?"

Your bolded statements are simple repetations of what I said. There is no general belief in the African American community that Republicans are racist.

As for giving to charity, giving on Sunday and taking on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday doesn't sound like much to me. In fact, I'm guessing that Republicans also go to church more than democrats, right? Well, if that's the case, then it explains this as well: On the one hand, they talk against abortions while on the other they are killing those who are for it. On the on hand they go on and on about compassion while on the other hand they kill prisoners and start and support wars. The conflicts within must be turbalent.

You apparently love to steriotype. How many abortion clinic bombers have there been in the past 30 years? Now compare that to the population of christian conservatives?

And I wouldnt get too crazy about the church attendence theory either. Catholics vote democrat, and catholics are one of the biggest, if not the biggest voting bloc in this country.

Unsupported, bald assertions (especially ones that are untrue) that go unchallenged are the bane of message boards everywhere.

Let's examine some facts.
http://www.catholicvote.net/re...atholic_vote/index.htm

"One thing that has remained constant about the Catholic vote over the last 27 years is its accuracy in determining the outcome of the election. Exit polls have shown that Catholics voted mostly for Richard Nixon in 1972, Jimmy Carter in ?76, Ronald Reagan in ?80 and ?84, George Bush in ?88, and Bill Clinton in ?92 and ?96. In the presidential election of 2000, Catholics comprised 26% of the voters and they favored Democrat Al Gore by the slight margin of 2 percentage points over Republican George W. Bush (49% to 47%). In a close race, Vice President Al Gore won the Catholic vote, just as he did the popular vote nationwide. In 2004, Catholics are evenly divided in support for President George Bush and Senator John Kerry."

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Individually, the men and women listed below may lie on the fringe of our society, albeit still accepted despite the reservations of others. What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

BTW, seeing that there are so many of these types of people in the conservative movement, I may start to second guess who they really are.


Ted Haggard

Mary Cheney

David Vitter

Bob Allen

Mark Foley

Special Case #1
George Bush

Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

People better than you? :shocked:


What a stupid troll post, but should I expect anything for the left's lead nazi?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

Democrats don't own anything just as Republicans don't either. By your logic, Republicans are responsible for the abject level of poverty in the South.

The fact is, the problems in the inner city are a problem for those in that area.

Wouldn't that same logic hold true for the poor southerners?

Blacks vote for Democrats for the same general reasons businesses vote for Republicans. By your other dumb logic, then it is the republicans fault that the tax system is so skewed for the benefit of businesses. Compared to Western Europe, America is teetering on a social crisis.

Again, my general thoughts on the poor southerner continually voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them strikes me as odd. I find it odd that these poor southerners are more afraid of gays and women having abortions than the welfare of their own families.

Yea, and I find it odd that the poor people in the city keep voting for a party that doesn't give a damn about them, especially when their conditions aren't improving, but getting worse. I find it odd that these poor urbanites are more afraid of the evil racist Republicans that would throw them back into slaver the first chance they got then the welfare of their own families.

At the end of the day, a person should be more worried about his own family than what other people do with their bodies. The hypocrisy is all the more glaring considering that the Republican "champions" are doing privately what they are publicly against...DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO:roll:

Intersting, wasn't it recently noted that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats? Looks like its not just the big bad racist Republicans that fall into the DO AS i SAY NOT AS I DO crowd.

See the bold above.

BTW, you ignored my question, "Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?"

Your bolded statements are simple repetations of what I said. There is no general belief in the African American community that Republicans are racist.

As for giving to charity, giving on Sunday and taking on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday doesn't sound like much to me. In fact, I'm guessing that Republicans also go to church more than democrats, right? Well, if that's the case, then it explains this as well: On the one hand, they talk against abortions while on the other they are killing those who are for it. On the on hand they go on and on about compassion while on the other hand they kill prisoners and start and support wars. The conflicts within must be turbalent.

You apparently love to steriotype. How many abortion clinic bombers have there been in the past 30 years? Now compare that to the population of christian conservatives?

And I wouldnt get too crazy about the church attendence theory either. Catholics vote democrat, and catholics are one of the biggest, if not the biggest voting bloc in this country.

WTF does Catholics have to do with church attendence?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Narmer
Individually, the men and women listed below may lie on the fringe of our society, albeit still accepted despite the reservations of others. What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

BTW, seeing that there are so many of these types of people in the conservative movement, I may start to second guess who they really are.


Ted Haggard

Mary Cheney

David Vitter

Bob Allen

Mark Foley

Special Case #1
George Bush

Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

People better than you? :shocked:


What a stupid troll post, but should I expect anything for the left's lead nazi?

You are one arrogant SOB. You like to call people on this forum stupid and I'm going to take you to task on that. Please, show us how intelligent you are.

By the way, if you think I'm a leftest than you're as simple-minded as they come.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Narmer
Individually, the men and women listed below may lie on the fringe of our society, albeit still accepted despite the reservations of others. What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

BTW, seeing that there are so many of these types of people in the conservative movement, I may start to second guess who they really are.


Ted Haggard

Mary Cheney

David Vitter

Bob Allen

Mark Foley

Special Case #1
George Bush

Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

People better than you? :shocked:


What a stupid troll post, but should I expect anything for the left's lead nazi?

You are one arrogant SOB. You like to call people on this forum stupid and I'm going to take you to task on that. Please, show us how intelligent you are.

By the way, if you think I'm a leftest than you're as simple-minded as they come.

Narmer your such a tool of the moonbats that the only reason I read your posts are to see how stupid people like you can get. The arrogance you display is that only conservatives are deserving such scorn. Calling you simpled minded would be a compliment.

Do moonbats wear jack boots too? I wonder.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Narmer
Individually, the men and women listed below may lie on the fringe of our society, albeit still accepted despite the reservations of others. What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

BTW, seeing that there are so many of these types of people in the conservative movement, I may start to second guess who they really are.


Ted Haggard

Mary Cheney

David Vitter

Bob Allen

Mark Foley

Special Case #1
George Bush

Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

People better than you? :shocked:


What a stupid troll post, but should I expect anything for the left's lead nazi?

You are one arrogant SOB. You like to call people on this forum stupid and I'm going to take you to task on that. Please, show us how intelligent you are.

By the way, if you think I'm a leftest than you're as simple-minded as they come.

Narmer your such a tool of the moonbats that the only reason I read your posts are to see how stupid people like you can get. The arrogance you display is that only conservatives are deserving such scorn. Calling you simpled minded would be a compliment.

Do moonbats wear jack boots too? I wonder.

WTF is a moonbat you clown? And who exactly am I a tool for? I make one thread about self-hating hypocritical conservatives and now I'm saying only they deserve scorn? Listen little man, why don't you close your mouth when adults are talking, OK? You'd be on my list too if the fact that you smell your sister's panties and harbor unholy thoughts about your mother wasn't still private.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Narmer

WTF is a moonbat you clown? And who exactly am I a tool for? I make one thread about self-hating hypocritical conservatives and now I'm saying only they deserve scorn? Listen little man, why don't you close your mouth when adults are talking, OK? You'd be on my list too if the fact that you smell your sister's panties and harbor unholy thoughts about your mother wasn't still private.

Stooping to new lows I see with the personal attacks. Don't worry I quoted you before you can edit.

Once again, didn't you get a bit defensive with the whole War on Terror label? And here you are again labelling people. Hyprocritical much?