Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    [QUOTE]Colin Powell was tolerated until he started voicing his own opinion.  as soon as he criticized McCain for picking Palin, he was lambasted.  Accused of backing Obama because they had the same skin color. 

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Colin Powell was celebrated by the right as a successful military man turned statesman until he proved to be just another self-aggrandizing statist politician. It's not about the color of the skin, it's about professing and adhering to conservative principles. In this regard Colin Powell was an abject failure.

    Ironically, it is the left that far more concerned with race and ethnicity.

    Look at how the left tried to destroy Justice Clarence Thomas. Look at the name calling that takes place any time a person of color speaks up for conservative values.

    The tea party is first and foremost an organization devoted to promoting the fiscal health of the United States of America. People of all colors are and always have been welcome in this effort. If that were not true I would not be a supporter.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The emphasis on 'fiscal health' is a sham. The true agenda of the Tea Party movement is, pure and simple, resentment of the President based on his race.  His opponents in the US Confederacy bitterly oppose his very existence; thus everything he does is suspect, foolish, or treasonous.  

    Angry sheep spouting nothing but boiler plate bumper sticker slogans. When pressed beyond their slogans they have not an inkling of a clue what they are for, or how they would address anything they deem as a problem.  All they know is what they hate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Show me the evidence.

    As far as angy sheep, it is usually the left that is all up in my grille speaking "truth to power".  The TEA party protests, in comparison, are civil and useful.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JacksBadDay's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why does Alley use a gross and lewd sexual reference when describing people?  Who does he think he is? President Obama?

    [/QUOTE]


    Reported.

    [/QUOTE]

    Awwwwww.......did I hurt the little conservative evangelical's feelings? lol

    [/QUOTE]

    No, you didn't hurt my feelings.  I actually feel sad for you.  Your life's experience seems bracketed by insulting people.  It is a really sad existence.

    When you use a term like "bagger", you try to label those you disagree with with a slur, as to diminish them, but end up just cheapening yourself.  You lose credibility, like Obama, when he did it.

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

    I believe ACB was not referring to you but to JackBadDay with that remark.

    As for your post being removed, it was wrong. Please read my above post.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks Adijen.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    [QUOTE]...but if you're going to claim Demorats deliberately passed the policies to hurt black people, you're a liar no better than skeeter/tvoter...

    Let's call it "results based racism." Whether intentional or not these "misguided" policies have been disasterous for the majority of the black community. And yet there is no introspection, no suggestion from the left that perhaps these policies are failing, that something needs to change. No, what we see instead is the scapegoating of a bunch of people who, based on the evidence, on the whole want everyone in this nation to succeed regardless of their skin color.

    So, what am I to believe? I know that the Democrats are lying about racism on the right because I am part of the right and I know what we believe. So, if they can do that instead of honestly working with the right to resolve differences and fix the problems that their policies have created then why shouldn't I believe that there is a sub-current of racism in their actions?

    [/QUOTE]

    Good lord.

    You know that there is NO racism on the right because, as a part of it, you know what everyone ("we") on the right believes?

    It really was just a complete innocent coincidence to you that the first black president is also the first sitting President to endure years where even the legitimacy of his birth was qestioned?

    What, do you think that admitting that there might be some other racists on the right somehow casts a taint on you?



    Meanwhile, you know that the left are the real racists because you do not know of or refuse to see that (1) not all policies are completely failed, and (2) there is plenty of criticism of policies originated by democrats, coming from the left? And of those who think that the policies are working (as in, things could be worse without them) don't honestly mean it...they're just racists? Because YOU think the policies are completely failed?


    What a joke (aka, insult to intelligence).

     

    Good lord...

    Over the last few months alone, there have been threads criticising affirmative action's race-focus which were supported by the left. Critiques of the War on Drugs (which disproportionately affects minorities. Probably because the left makes cops racist, right?)

     

     

    At this point, you sound like tvoter complaining that "liberals" never complain about Obama/Ds, four thread posts away from liberals who were complaining about OBama/Ds... 

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At this point, you sound like tvoter complaining that "liberals" never complain about Obama/Ds, four thread posts away from liberals who were complaining about OBama/Ds... 

    [/QUOTE]

    Making a frew token comments about d's to appear non-partisan is NOT fooling anyone who has been on these boards the last 10 years or so and know the truth.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    Nobody thinks all Republicans are racist.

    Many think that the GOP has thrown it's lot in with racists for political expediency.

    I don't think tvoter, 462 or sb are racists.  Maybe they don't support equal pay, but it has more to do with freedom of business than oppressing women.  Maybe they support voter id laws, but it has more to do with distrust of a government beureaucracy than it does stopping black people from voting, and if 8 years down the road, it cost a poor man with no car $200 to get an ID, they would change their positions.

    But there are a slew of issues that GOP has adopted that both adversely affects minorities or women, and puts more government in your lives - issues like gay marriage, english as a national language, the AZ immigration documentation laws, mandatory ultrasounds, banning gays from the military.  These are all issues that the GOP would not have adopted prior to 1964. 

    In 1968, George Wallace ran as a third-party candidate on one issue - repeal the civil rights movement and bring segregation back to the south.  His party was the American Indepedent Party, and it still exists today.  I've pasted its entire platform below - read it and ask yourself if maybe the GOP has changed its views over the years to attract this type of voter ...

     

    The Constitution: the Original Contract that America has with Itself
    The American Independent Party is the party of ordered liberty in a nation under God. We believe in strict adherence to written law. We believe the Constitution is the contract America has with itself. Its willful distortion has led to the violation of our Tenth Amendment guaranteed right to limited government—which inevitably requires oppressive taxation. Its faithful application will lift that awful burden.

    Freedom from "Liberalism"
    Freed from the lawless oppression of Liberal rule, we may then compassionately and justly use our energy and ingenuity to provide for ourselves and our families. We will then establish truly free and responsible enterprise and reassert the basic human right to property.

    The Protection of Life, and the Duties and Rights of Families
    We believe in protecting all human life however weak, defenseless, or disheartened; we endorse the family as the essential bulwark of liberty, compassion, responsibility, and industry; and declare the family's right and responsibility to nurture, discipline, and educate its children. We maintain that all humans are persons from the beginning of their biological development and especially deserve our love and nurture when they are weakest and most dependent.

    Marriage Between a Man and a Woman
    We insist that marriage is between a man and a woman and assert the role of the law in establishing and reinforcing the mutual rights and obligations of that God-ordained contract.

    The Individual and Common Defense
    We assert the absolute, concurrent Second Amendment guaranteed individual right to self defense against impositions by other citizens or our government, coupled with a strong common defense, a common defense which requires a national sovereignty not damaged by imprudent or un-Constitutional treaties. 

    Opposition to Illegal Immigration and Support of Secure Borders
    We oppose all illegal immigration. We support secure borders and immigration policies, inviting the best of the world to join us in freedom. We emphatically demand that our borders be protected against intrusions by that most straight-forward and practical means, a fence, reinforced by all the necessary manpower and electronic surveillance. We also insist that those who violate our immigration laws—be they illegal immigrants or their employers—be punished for their crime in a way that will deter them from future offenses.

    Our Great Pro-Life Constitution
    The Republic established by our Constitution is the greatest of all pro-life institutions. In the first place, it protects our lives from the impositions of foreign nations and internal disorder. Our Constitution in its Fifth Amendment also forbids the government to take life—or liberty or property—unjustly. The Fourteenth amendment requires all States to apply all the protections they provide for life equally to all visitors or citizens, and to all born or unborn persons within the territories governed by their laws.

    Public Servants, Not Public Masters! All Governments Under God
    We believe that all those who govern are the servants of God for the good of citizens. Therefore all governments are under God whether they like it or not! This is why we call those who rule in our nation, Public Servants. We will resist by all political means at our disposal the increasing inclination of our Public employees and representatives to become, ever more, Public Masters.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JacksBadDay's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why does Alley use a gross and lewd sexual reference when describing people?  Who does he think he is? President Obama?

    [/QUOTE]


    Reported.

    [/QUOTE]

    Awwwwww.......did I hurt the little conservative evangelical's feelings? lol

    [/QUOTE]

    No, you didn't hurt my feelings.  I actually feel sad for you.  Your life's experience seems bracketed by insulting people.  It is a really sad existence.

    When you use a term like "bagger", you try to label those you disagree with with a slur, as to diminish them, but end up just cheapening yourself.  You lose credibility, like Obama, when he did it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll keep that in mind the next time a Bagger waves the confederate flag in front of the White House. And if Baggers hate that term so much, why do they use tea bags as their symbol?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At this point, you sound like tvoter complaining that "liberals" never complain about Obama/Ds, four thread posts away from liberals who were complaining about OBama/Ds... 

    [/QUOTE]

    Making a frew token comments about d's to appear non-partisan is NOT fooling anyone who has been on these boards the last 10 years or so and know the truth.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Token comments?

    You need to take your ego down a few thousand notches. Nobody is criticizing Ds to prove anything to you.

     

     

     

    ROFL + LMFAO

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JacksBadDay's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why does Alley use a gross and lewd sexual reference when describing people?  Who does he think he is? President Obama?

    [/QUOTE]


    Reported.

    [/QUOTE]

    Awwwwww.......did I hurt the little conservative evangelical's feelings? lol

    [/QUOTE]

    No, you didn't hurt my feelings.  I actually feel sad for you.  Your life's experience seems bracketed by insulting people.  It is a really sad existence.

    When you use a term like "bagger", you try to label those you disagree with with a slur, as to diminish them, but end up just cheapening yourself.  You lose credibility, like Obama, when he did it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll keep that in mind the next time a Bagger waves the confederate flag in front of the White House. And if Baggers hate that term so much, why do they use tea bags as their symbol?

    [/QUOTE]

    You meant to say when a liberal plant waves a confederate flag, but I get the gist.

    Still, clinging to the derougatory term.  So, well, childish.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Token comments?

    You need to take your ego down a few thousand notches. Nobody is criticizing Ds to prove anything to you. 

    [QUOTE]


    Obviously I was correct. lmao

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Three edits to try to find a solid comeback? Good lord...   

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE] You meant to say when a liberal plant waves a confederate flag [/QUOTE]

    skeeter, shut up...  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    [QUOTE]I read this post much earlier. I wanted to take my time to respond. I did find something that is different then the responses from the other progressives. I am interested in your take on it if you care to respond.[/QUOTE]

    andie, it's mostly what some of us have been saying for quite a while now, only framed differently. Right now, the only place for a Reagan style constitution-based conservative is in the tea party. The Bush family, Lindsey Graham, McCain, Romney and the like are not conservative and only slightly preferable to a Democrat. In fact, they tend to have a lot more in common with Democrats than they do with a tea party conservative.

     

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    [QUOTE]You know that there is NO racism on the right because, as a part of it, you know what everyone ("we") on the right believes?[/QUOTE]

    I didn't say NO racism. What I'm saying is that racism isn't part of how the vast majority of consevatives think.

     

     

    [QUOTE]It really was just a complete innocent coincidence to you that the first black president is also the first sitting President to endure years where even the legitimacy of his birth was qestioned?[/QUOTE]

     

    It was politics mixed with some genuine questions about the most powerful man in the world that have never been answered. Regarding the birth question, you know as well as I do that this was encouraged by the Obama campaign in order to have easy ammunition to call their detractors racist and crazy. In general, it was no more racist than the questions about McCain's birth in the Panama Canal zone or now Ted Cruz's birth in Canada. Finally, if you really beleive that to question  the legitimacy of Obama's birth is by definition racist then you must also believe that Hillary Clinton is a racist because it was her campaign that first brought it up.

     

     

    [QUOTE]Meanwhile, you know that the left are the real racists because you do not know of or refuse to see that (1) not all policies are completely failed, and (2) there is plenty of criticism of policies originated by democrats, coming from the left? And of those who think that the policies are working (as in, things could be worse without them) don't honestly mean it...they're just racists? Because YOU think the policies are completely failed?[/QUOTE]

    I know that the black community on the whole has fared quite poorly under the policies and programs that have been promoted and supported by Democrats. Do you disagree?



     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    Did some nit-freakin-wit try to say they wrote a paper on string theory as a means to vilify and then push their political agenda on the rest of us?

    Who can count all the problems with that...?

    I only have ten fingers.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    Everything you believe is true.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfilio. Show portfilio's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

     

     

    Where’s John Kuzmanich? Process servers can’t find the Oregon Tea Party founder, who’s more than three years behind on mortgage payments.

     

    http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21408-where%E2%80%99s_john_kuzmanich.html

     

     

    Few Oregonians have cheered the congressional budget impasse and federal government shutdown more loudly than John Kuzmanich, founder and chairman of the Oregon Tea Party.

    Since the Tea Party started in 2009, its members have clamored for smaller government, lower taxes and stronger border security. Party leaders—including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)—have helped push Republicans further to the right, making it more difficult for House GOP leaders to reach a compromise on funding the government.

    While less influential in Oregon, Kuzmanich and the state’s Tea Party have nonetheless cheered the confrontation with President Obama over the budget.

    Kuzmanich, for example, appeared on KATU Channel 2’s Your Voice, Your Vote on Oct. 6, where he told host Steve Dunn the forced budget austerity would help Americans return to “fiscal and personal responsibility.”

    “We are just good and decent principled Americans who believe in the Constitution and a fiscally responsible government,” said Kuzmanich.

    Even as he spoke those words, Kuzmanich was on the run from his own financial responsibilities.

    Washington County court records show Kuzmanich is more than three years behind in mortgage payments on a Beaverton duplex. The lender, the Federal National Mortgage Association, better known as Fannie Mae, has gone to extraordinary lengths—unsuccessfully, so far—to find Kuzmanich and serve him with court papers.

    Kuzmanich, 45, is a University of Iowa grad who built a family trucking business and worked as a mortgage broker. He burst onto the political scene in 2009, founding the Oregon Tea Party and launching a bid for the 1st Congressional District seat then held by U.S. Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.).

    He also claimed a prominent political pedigree: He is related to the late U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.). (The maiden name of Antoinette Hatfield, the senator’s widow, is Kuzmanich.)

    “In late 2009,” according to a Kuzmanich bio on the University of Iowa website, “John made the decision to run for United States Congress in Oregon’s 1st Congressional District, his home, and following in the political tradition of Senator Mark Hatfield, a member of his family, he decided to put all his relevant experience to work to serve and represent his principles, his family, his community and country.”

    He added this in his 2010 Voters’ Pamphlet statement: “We need to decrease the size of government and make it live within its means just like we do.”

    Kuzmanich finished third out of four candidates in the 2010 Republican primary, with 28 percent of the vote.

    Records show Kuzmanich four years earlier had paid $361,000 for a duplex on Southwest 150th Avenue in Beaverton. 

    Less than two weeks after the election, on June 1, 2010, Kuzmanich failed to make the mortgage payment on his duplex, court records say. He has not made a payment since. 

    He now owes principal of $289,000 and unpaid interest of more than $42,000.

    In March, Fannie Mae filed suit against Kuzmanich  and since April has tried to serve him with papers 19 times, visiting his duplex, a Cannon Beach apartment, his former business address and the residence he listed in Portland when he ran for Congress in 2010.

    “No answer at the door, no noise inside and no movement inside. No vehicles,” the process server wrote in an affidavit after visiting that last address in June.

    “After exercising due diligence, Plaintiff has been unable to serve defendants John Kuzmanich and Occupants of the premises, but believes they reside in Washington County,” Fannie Mae’s lawyer, Michael Thornicroft, told the court Aug 12. The court has since approved publishing public notices of the foreclosure in lieu of serving Kuzmanich with papers.

    Aaron Crowe, president of the Oregon Association of Process Servers, says defendants are under no obligation to accept service of documents in lawsuits, but most do. 

    Crowe says it’s common for a defendant to have to be served more than once, but Fannie Mae’s “Where’s Waldo?” experience with Kuzmanich is far from the norm.

    “That is unusual,” says Crowe, who was not involved in the case. “Usually we get service within a couple of days.”

    Process servers aren’t the only ones who have trouble finding the Oregon Tea Party founder. 

    WW tried to reach Kuzmanich by cellphone, text, email and at the headquarters of his political consulting firm, American Strategies, that he co-founded in 2011.

    What we’re left with is this quote from his company’s website:  “John believes that if you have the truth on your side, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.”

     

     

     

    Tea Baggers -  tax cheats and treasonous crooks.

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfilio. Show portfilio's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

     

     

     

    How Americans feel about the Tea Baggers:

     

     

    http://www.pollingreport.com/images/ABC131022.GIF

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Another win for the TRUE patriots!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    SB: I didn't say NO racism. What I'm saying is that racism isn't part of how the vast majority of consevatives think.


    And I said that racism is how the vast majority of conservatives think? Of course not.

     

     

    SB: "It was politics mixed with some genuine questions about the most powerful man in the world that have never been answered. Regarding the birth question, you know as well as I do that this was encouraged by the Obama campaign in order to have easy ammunition to call their detractors racist and crazy. In general, it was no more racist than the questions about McCain's birth in the Panama Canal zone or now Ted Cruz's birth in Canada. Finally, if you really beleive that to question  the legitimacy of Obama's birth is by definition racist then you must also believe that Hillary Clinton is a racist because it was her campaign that first brought it up."

    1. The fact that Hillary Clinton's campaign started it does not excuse anyone else who believed it. What a silly position to take.

    2. Obama "encouraged it"? He released a short form and pointed to announcements of live birth. Witnesses also came forward.

    Birtherism persisted for years after. Unlike you, I'm not going to blame OBama for the existence of birthers demanding his long form.

    He didn't make them birthers by not immediately releasing his long form upon their slanderous and racially questionable demands.

     

     

    SB: I know that the black community on the whole has fared quite poorly under the policies and programs that have been promoted and supported by Democrats. Do you disagree"

    Oh, no, don't tap-dance over to how well the programs are or are not working. First of all, while you can poitn to flaws in some programs, you can't say how things would be without them.

    Nevermind that just about every, if not every, accused liberal here AGREES with entitlement reform to cut out fraud and waste. But as pinkie liked to point out, we can't very well pass the laws ourselves, so the most we can do about it now is talk about it here and talk to representatives and hope.

    But let's not backtrack. I was talking about how you claims that Democrats were either intentionally or unintentionally racist because you think their policies failed:

     

    SB: Let's call it "results based racism." Whether intentional or not these "misguided" policies have been disasterous for the majority of the black community. And yet there is no introspection, no suggestion from the left that perhaps these policies are failing, that something needs to change. No, what we see instead is the scapegoating of a bunch of people who, based on the evidence, on the whole want everyone in this nation to succeed regardless of their skin color.

    So, what am I to believe? I know that the Democrats are lying about racism on the right because I am part of the right and I know what we believe. So, if they can do that instead of honestly working with the right to resolve differences and fix the problems that their policies have created then why shouldn't I believe that there is a sub-current of racism in their actions?

     

    Unintentional racism? Due to passing policies that end up not fixing everything perfectly?

    Racism:

    noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.   2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.   3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

     

     

    While there's no way to put a number of it, I can't see how anyone can insist that racism wasn't at all a motivation.

    40% of Rs and something like 20% of Ds polled said they didn't think Obama was born in the U.S. Another 28% of Rs and X% of Ds said they "weren't sure."

    Obama was the first black president. No other president has had to endure this.

    There was NO reason for continuing doubt. There was NO reason to demand the long form.

    Birtherism = slander, with a racial motivation for some amount of those people.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Q: Why do the Baggers hate their President?

    [QUOTE]SB: I didn't say NO racism. What I'm saying is that racism isn't part of how the vast majority of consevatives think.


    And I said that racism is how the vast majority of conservatives think? Of course not.[/QUOTE]

     

    The point being that the Tea Party is no more racist than the Democrat party and I'm sick of the BS from those that would rather shout RACISM than actually discuss the issues.

     

     

Share