Who Gives The Most?

[crashtestdummy]

Honestly, I don't particularly care how much my president gives to charity, just as I don't particularly care that Romney happens to be a Mormon. I consider those aspect of their personal lives. I'm more interested in the policy choices they make (or plan to make).

Edit: How they plan to follow through and their reasoning behind them also matter, but religious affiliation or charitable giving don't necessarily have to define those.

 

[PokerGuy]

Wasn't that debunked a while back because Faux stopped riding that dead horse.

We've seen the sermons and rantings and ravings of that racist Wright, and we know he was a mentor, confidant and pastor to obummer. Sorry, nothing to debunk. Now please show me any indication that Romney is in any way associated with racism or racists, as perk implies in his smear.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So the outrage is because Romney belongs to a religion that had crazy stuff changed 35 or so years ago. Do you have evidence that he believes in the old way? What would you say if a Muslim really were running? Exactly the same?

 

[Icepick]

Well, giving free money to those who are less fortunate wreaks of Socialism. I guess now we know that Mitt's a closet Socialist and that Rick and Newt are the only real choices for Conservatives this year.

 

[Perknose]

I can sure see your hypocrisy though, it's splashed all over this page.

Oh, the ironing! :awe:

Your relentless and bitterly twisted partisan hate perspective permeates most everything you post. That you can't or won't see that, even as you repeatedly scream victim status, is both telling and sad.

As a recent example, here's YOU in action re: Saul Alinsky:

In post #4, you say you've "known about him for decades."

I challenge you as to WHAT you know about him, and by Post #8 it turns out you possess not ONE first hand specific, but just know, as Bill Moyers says in the OP's article:

The crowd knows nothing except that they're supposed to hate him.

Very, very telling!

I challenge you again for factual specifics for your HATE, a challenge you accept . . . all the while confidently predicting you'll HATE this guy you really know nothing about even more: D:

I think as I learn more about him I'll hate him even more and for cause. We'll see.

So, you go off to find factual specifics for your as yet unsubstantiated HATE (your words!), and you come back, having whiffed and failed entirely!

Do you admit this, as any honest man would? No, you don't. You deny and divert from your abject failure, and instead, cling to your HATE:

After reading more about him, he's an asshole. Plain and simple. He did much more to damage this country then the small things he did to help it. It might not be specific or factual enough for you, but it is for me.

Hoisted on your own HATE petard, Mr. Accusation Flinger!

If that sorry performance of yours isn't a textbook example of the ugly and unholy confluence of smug ignorance and partisan hate, I don't know what is.

So, yeah, my hypocrisy is splashed all over these pages.

Right!

 

[janas19]

Oh, the ironing! :awe:

Your relentless and bitterly twisted partisan hate perspective permeates most everything you post. That you can't or won't see that, even as you repeatedly scream victim status, is both telling and sad.

As a recent example, here's YOU in action re: Saul Alinsky:

In post #4, you say you've "known about him for decades."

I challenge you as to WHAT you know about him, and by Post #8 it turns out you possess not ONE first hand specific, but just know, as Bill Moyers says in the OP's article:
Very, very telling!

I challenge you again for factual specifics for your HATE, a challenge you accept . . . all the while confidently predicting you'll HATE this guy you really know nothing about even more: D:

So, you go off to find factual specifics for your as yet unsubstantiated HATE (your words!), and you come back, having whiffed and failed entirely!

Do you admit this, as any honest man would? No, you don't. You deny and divert from your abject failure, and instead, cling to your HATE:

Hoisted on your own HATE petard, Mr. Accusation Flinger!

If that sorry performance of yours isn't a textbook example of the ugly and unholy confluence of smug ignorance and partisan hate, I don't know what is.

So, yeah, my hypocrisy is splashed all over these pages.

Right!

Who are you quoting there, buddy? Lol. I looked, have no clue what you're replying to ...

Edit: I see it now, last sentence of Monovillage's post.

I was looking and looking, thought I might just be blind!

 

[Perknose]

So the outrage is because Romney belongs to a religion that had crazy stuff changed 35 or so years ago. Do you have evidence that he believes in the old way? What would you say if a Muslim really were running? Exactly the same?

If a Muslim were really running you can bet he'd be asked, repeatedly and in depth, where he stood on the more "murderous/primitive" interpretations of his religion.

I don't personally think Romney ever really thought blacks were mud people, forever cursed. At least, I certainly hope not.

But to my knowledge, he's never even been ASKED!! What does this tell you about the vigor and objectivity of our "free press?"

A not unsizable portion of our electorate still actively thinks Obama is a radical Muslim even though its complete and utter BS, while everyone seems to give Romney's more factual religious affiliation and any implications thereof a huge berth, as if that's off limits.

Why is that, Haya?

 

[monovillage]

Oh, the ironing! :awe:

Your relentless and bitterly twisted partisan hate perspective permeates most everything you post. That you can't or won't see that, even as you repeatedly scream victim status, is both telling and sad.

As a recent example, here's YOU in action re: Saul Alinsky:

In post #4, you say you've "known about him for decades."

I challenge you as to WHAT you know about him, and by Post #8 it turns out you possess not ONE first hand specific, but just know, as Bill Moyers says in the OP's article:
Very, very telling!

I challenge you again for factual specifics for your HATE, a challenge you accept . . . all the while confidently predicting you'll HATE this guy you really know nothing about even more: D:

So, you go off to find factual specifics for your as yet unsubstantiated HATE (your words!), and you come back, having whiffed and failed entirely!

Do you admit this, as any honest man would? No, you don't. You deny and divert from your abject failure, and instead, cling to your HATE:

Hoisted on your own HATE petard, Mr. Accusation Flinger!

If that sorry performance of yours isn't a textbook example of the ugly and unholy confluence of smug ignorance and partisan hate, I don't know what is.

So, yeah, my hypocrisy is splashed all over these pages.

Right!

Why didn't you quote my entire post? You have to trim it so you can take what I said out of context. You are only partially quoting my post and you know it.

 

[monovillage]

Who are you quoting there, buddy? Lol. I looked, have no clue what you're replying to ...

Edit: I see it now, last sentence of Monovillage's post.

I was looking and looking, thought I might just be blind!

He has a very bad habit of only quoting partial posts, and then taking them out of context.

 

[hal2kilo]

I know the protestant evangels think that Mormanisn isn't really a Christian religion but, I haven't really detected even dog whistle anti-morman comments against Romney. It must be that they are so united in their hate for Obama, that they are putting on a united front.

 

[Perknose]

Why didn't you quote my entire post? You have to trim it so you can take what I said out of context. You are only partially quoting my post and you know it.

The links ARE THERE in my post for anyone to read. I quoted the relevant parts and ot one of my quotes of yours is taken out of context, which means, as you should know, that their meaning in NOT different from their context.

Why don't YOU man up and show where any one of them FALSELY conveys what you said.

I challenge you to prove your assertion.

You can't, and you know it.

He has a very bad habit of only quoting partial posts, and then taking them out of context.

That's one fucking LIE you just told. Back it up with linked and supported examples.

Not one of my quotes of you misrepresents what you said, which is what is meant by "taking out of context."

You are one lazy liar, land should be held to account for your lazy and untrue accusations.

 

[monovillage]

The links ARE THERE in my post for anyone to read. I quoted the relevant parts and ot one of my quotes of yours is taken out of context, which means, as you should know, that their meaning in NOT different from their context.

Why don't YOU man up and show where any one of them FALSELY conveys what you said.

I challenge you to prove your assertion.

You can't, and you know it.



That's one fucking LIE you just told. Back it up with linked and supported examples.

Not one of my quotes of you misrepresents what you said, which is what is meant by "taking out of context."

You are one lazy liar, land should be held to account for your lazy and untrue accusations.

This part of my post which you left out.

Quote:
THAT PERENNIAL QUESTION, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

Which is a direct quote from Mr. Alinsky's book which I took the time to read (at least parts of it) and which gives the reasons I felt he was bad for the country.

*edit* It's obvious that you take Alinsky to heart and believe that religious intolerance and bigotry are justification for getting Obama re-elected.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Seems BHO bumped around the 0-5% range until he ran for prez. Then it was 6% when he made almost a million bucks.

Meh - seems the OP wants to mislead people into thinking BHO believes in charity when it's clear he didn't give much until he made oodles from his little book.

 

[zinfamous]

without reading I'm going to go with Mormons.

They tend to give the most out of any group/community.

 

[werepossum]

Oh, the ironing! :awe:

Your relentless and bitterly twisted partisan hate perspective permeates most everything you post. That you can't or won't see that, even as you repeatedly scream victim status, is both telling and sad.

As a recent example, here's YOU in action re: Saul Alinsky:

In post #4, you say you've "known about him for decades."

I challenge you as to WHAT you know about him, and by Post #8 it turns out you possess not ONE first hand specific, but just know, as Bill Moyers says in the OP's article:
Very, very telling!

I challenge you again for factual specifics for your HATE, a challenge you accept . . . all the while confidently predicting you'll HATE this guy you really know nothing about even more: D:

So, you go off to find factual specifics for your as yet unsubstantiated HATE (your words!), and you come back, having whiffed and failed entirely!

Do you admit this, as any honest man would? No, you don't. You deny and divert from your abject failure, and instead, cling to your HATE:

Hoisted on your own HATE petard, Mr. Accusation Flinger!

If that sorry performance of yours isn't a textbook example of the ugly and unholy confluence of smug ignorance and partisan hate, I don't know what is.

So, yeah, my hypocrisy is splashed all over these pages.

Right!

I can't believe you're defending Alinsky. While Rules for Radicals might be your idea of mainstream, most people agree that Alinsky wrote the blueprint for revolution, turning America into the Soviet States of America by any means necessary. We only differ in whether or not we think that is a good thing or a very, very bad thing.

Personally I hope he got his wish and is now spending eternity in Hell. And I'm very, very glad he had no more success than he did.

 

[zinfamous]

Me too, I also loved the religious bigotry in the post. It's so nice to see someones religion brought into politics and backhandedly call them racists or their religion labeled a "cult".
This must be the tolerance I hear so many leftists talk about. Nice to see it partially defined here.

the only people "bringing" any political candidates' religion into the campaign are the candidates themselves. If they want to make an issue of it, as they always do, then they damn well better be prepared for proper criticism and ridicule, when appropriate.

This is America, after all. We are allowed to express our opinions and criticisms in such an open manner, or did you forget?

 

[zinfamous]

Here's a cracker.

did you just call him a cracker?

:hmm:

 

[bfdd]

waa waa waaa Every lefty/Democrat screams about how horrible and mean the conservative monsters are, but do the same things or worse. I was just pointing out the typical liberal hypocrite mantra of tolerance. You show your tolerance here.
You show me where i've called Obama a Muslim , or attacked his Christianity. I can sure see your hypocrisy though, it's splashed all over this page.

right? And if you call them on it you must be one of the piece of shits they disagree with because only those assholes could have a problem with hypocrisy right? I fucking hate hypocrites, all types.

 

[monovillage]

did you just call him a cracker?

:hmm:

I called him a parrot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If a Muslim were really running you can bet he'd be asked, repeatedly and in depth, where he stood on the more "murderous/primitive" interpretations of his religion.

I don't personally think Romney ever really thought blacks were mud people, forever cursed. At least, I certainly hope not.

But to my knowledge, he's never even been ASKED!! What does this tell you about the vigor and objectivity of our "free press?"

A not unsizable portion of our electorate still actively thinks Obama is a radical Muslim even though its complete and utter BS, while everyone seems to give Romney's more factual religious affiliation and any implications thereof a huge berth, as if that's off limits.

Why is that, Haya?

My point about a Muslim isn't regarding terrorism, but a cursory search reveals that homosexuality is condemned. If one holds that demonization of gays is as wrong as blacks then the same standard ought to apply in criticism based on one's religious affiliation. Personally I'd not try to make unproven accusations of either. Now if there has been concerns over past behaviors then that is justification for pursuing things further. Of course there are people who view one but not the other prejudice, but I have no reason to have ever believe you've approved of either. I think it's entirely dependent on the individual candidate in question and that's it.

 

[zinfamous]

Really? Link us up and show me where Romney made his Mormon faith an "integral part of his platform". We'll be waiting.

What perk did was typical hypocrisy: trying to smear Romney based on his faith without anything linking him to racism, but at the same time having no problems with another candidate who had a racist lunatic for a mentor, pastor and confidant for 20 years.

The GOP sure as shit has attacked him for it, and mercilessly so, over tee last 8 or so years.

Oh, you seem to forget that he never made it out of primaries, where the only people going after him would be fellow conservatives.

wait a tic--what was this about leftists, again?

:Hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

I called him a parrot.

Interesting. I am unaware of this particular racial epithet.

could you please explain?

 

[zinfamous]

We've seen the sermons and rantings and ravings of that racist Wright, and we know he was a mentor, confidant and pastor to obummer. Sorry, nothing to debunk. Now please show me any indication that Romney is in any way associated with racism or racists, as perk implies in his smear.

lol.

you know that he was a mentor and confidant? How the fuck do you know this?

lol. As far as real history is concerned, the Obamas moved in to that district and joined the church as part of what was expected of them, if he were to run in south Chicago politics, in that community. As far as anyone actually knows, The Obamas involvement with Wright was cursory, at best.
His time when they were there, was quite limited on top of that.
It was simply a disingenuous political move to appear as though they were part of the community. If anything, you would look at the reality of their membership as proof that they were "hiding something," --you know, the conservative theory that he's a "secret Muslim."

lmfo. you guys never get old.

 

[monovillage]

Interesting. I am unaware of this particular racial epithet.

could you please explain?

It isn't a racial epithet, it's a joke on the saying "Polly want a cracker"

It is a common saying to parrots. It literally means what it says... do you want a cracker? This is often used in training a parrot's unique ability to "speak". It's the common command, much like "sit", "stay", "roll-over", etc are the norms for dog training.

It was most likely popularised by the 1883 Robert Lewis Stevenson novel, Treasure Island as played out in the following scene (courtesy of pantoscripts.com):

Read more: Where does "Polly want a cracker?" come from and what does it mean? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/22342#ixzz1n9wbcTUS

 

[zinfamous]

It isn't a racial epithet, it's a joke on the saying "Polly want a cracker"



Read more: Where does "Polly want a cracker?" come from and what does it mean? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/22342#ixzz1n9wbcTUS

you're no fun.


you know that, right?