They are talking Impeachment!

You bumbling fool. I was talking about people going into business for themselves. Maybe growing/selling vegetables. Making furniture. Fixing cars.

Failure/lack of small businesses had nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with thieves/thugs stealing and targeting people who they thought had extra money.

The topic was your assertion that regulation stifles small businesses and that’s why people in communist countries didn’t have businesses. Once, again, it had nothing to do with regulations.

You are the one who brought up former Soviet Bloc countries, not me! People over there did not simply "decide to open a business" as the "decisions" are all made by the Government, NOT the people... they have no freedom to "decide" things, especially whether or not to practice capitalism... it doesn't exist in a Communist country. The lack of Capitalism had to do with a Communist System which prohibited "Free Enterprise!" You make a GREAT point about the level of corruption and crime in a Communist country! It's because they don't practice Capitalism there! It's because the STATE runs everything... like you want it to be HERE! MORON!

Not at all. Let anyone open a business but hold them responsible for what they do. If they say they can install windows and they can’t, close the business. If they made money from installing faulty windows make them repay the person they ripped off. What’s so unreasonable about that? And before the government gives a thief some of my tax money to open a business check to be sure they know how to do the business they are opening. What’s unreasonable about that? Or is job creation about getting grants, opening a business and ripping off people, then getting out as soon as possible?

What makes government agents, pushing paper behind a desk somewhere, qualified to determine if I know how to install windows?

It has to do with the whole idea of promoting small businesses which is the never-ending whine.

It's called FREEDOM you fucking retard, not whining!

No it’s not. We pass regulations precisely because of wrongdoers. The same as traffic regulations are there because of wrongdoers. They do not interfere with people who drive carefully.

Some regulations do stop some wrongdoing, but not always. There are still people who disobey the regulations, and more regulation is not going to suddenly make them change. That was my point.

If a bank didn’t have the money to loan they couldn’t have loaned it. The problem was new ways were devised to get money, ie: financial instruments. The banks sold their IOU’s that were not worth a damn so they could get more money to loan. In the end not only the banks lost but the people who purchased the IOUs. Those financial instruments were not government supervised. That was spelled out in the video, “The warning” but Allan Greenspan’s philosophy was, “No problem. When enough people get ripped off, when enough people realize the “note” is not worth the paper it’s printed on people will stop buying them.” So much for Greenspan’s idea, the king of capitalism.

Simply stated, if the government had used proper oversight there wouldn’t have been as much money to loan as people wouldn’t have bought the useless IOUs and the government wouldn’t have had to pay back all that money. In essence, the government guaranteed the IOUs through the banks. It’s not all that complicated.

THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED THEY LOAN THE MONEY! THEY DIDN'T JUST UP AND DECIDE TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN!
 
Quote:
Interesting...so what's the other 7/8 chuckles? And you're telling me that you're non-white?

I've already been through this with you. The other 7/8 are a mixture of about 20 different things, should I list them all again for ya, Bunky? What the fuck does this have to do with anything, anyway? Does everyone have to prove their 'minority' status to you before you'll grant them the decency of listening to what they have to say or something? I don't get it. Are you that much of a racist?

Your childish meltdown won't change the FACTS, my Dixie dunce. YOU originally told me that you opted to front your alleged Native American heritage in order to receive whatever compensations/breaks entitled under federal/state law. You then threw in some bullshit about 1/16 this and 3/8 that....and now you add yet another piece to the ever growing tale. But your CONSISTANT revisionist writings that are EXACT replicas of the guff found on the "intellectual" racist/bigoted sites like David Dukes leads one to the conclusion that either you are a very disturbed man with identity issues or you're just full of shit. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, bunky.


Quote:
(REDACTED REGURGITATION AND PLUG FOR RACIST WEBSITE) And here folks is an a-typical example of the white supremacist moronic tactics....calling anyone/organizations that expose hate and racism "racist". Dixie is too much of a coward to deal with www.splcenter.org...which tracks and exposes racial/ethnic hates groups OF ALL RACES, CREEDS, AND COLOR. What Dixie doesn't want the audience to see is how a LOT of his rantings and blatherings mimic the racists diatribes and propaganda of the hate groups the SPL sites. This is why it's absurd to take Dixie seriously about his self identification claims. You STILL cannot ignore or deny the FACTS of the "legal" support for abuses of citizens rights that the new AZ law opens to....or the examples of such abuses across the nation that have ALREADY happened.


The AZ law mirror the Federal law. There is no new provision in the AZ law that didn't already exist for Federal agents. To claim otherwise, is a distortion of the truth.. A LIE. You're quite proficient at lying, Bunky!

You can repeat that bullshit until the cows come home, you Dixie dunce...but as I linked on this thread earlier, what you say is NOT true. Here are some more examples:

Do conservatives really think new AZ immigration law is just like federal law?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004270035


http://azdatapages.com/sb1070.html#annotation/a0


Those who are "talking impeachment" are just as full of it as you are....and I'm not just whistl'in Dixie!
 
Libby you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. :palm:

If that's the best you can do, Southy...you should either quit as Dixie's lapdog or tell your mom to write better material.

You couldn't meet a simple burden of proof and got your Southern Man ass handed to you in the chronology of the posts....your denials non-withstanding. Grow up and deal, my Southern Man fool.
 
I will say, that whatever directions this thread may have taken (I haven't checked in a while, yet), the fact that the OP is about the perennial case of impeaching the president, pretty much invalidates the substance of anything that followed it.

This kind of crap is bullshit and conspiratorial in nature. Clinton, Bush and Obama have all had demands for impeachment. Even Clinton, who was impeached, didn't get charged with the serious offenses that could have brought him down (major campaign finance scandals, etc.), so he was as good as never impeached.

I'm tired of hearing the word.
 
I've already been through this with you. The other 7/8 are a mixture of about 20 different things, should I list them all again for ya, Bunky? What the fuck does this have to do with anything, anyway? Does everyone have to prove their 'minority' status to you before you'll grant them the decency of listening to what they have to say or something? I don't get it. Are you that much of a racist?

Your childish meltdown won't change the FACTS, my Dixie dunce. YOU originally told me that you opted to front your alleged Native American heritage in order to receive whatever compensations/breaks entitled under federal/state law. You then threw in some bullshit about 1/16 this and 3/8 that....and now you add yet another piece to the ever growing tale. But your CONSISTANT revisionist writings that are EXACT replicas of the guff found on the "intellectual" racist/bigoted sites like David Dukes leads one to the conclusion that either you are a very disturbed man with identity issues or you're just full of shit. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, bunky.

The only person who has been childishly melting down here is you, Chicklet. I am just trying to answer what appears to be important questions to you. Apparently, credibility relies on how much minority blood I have, and if I happen to have one drop of white European blood, I am not worthy of the same social status as you. I happen to have done an extensive research on my family genealogy, and my paternal grandmother's mother was full-blooded Cherokee, making her half Cherokee, my Dad 1/4 Cherokee and me 1/8 Cherokee. My great-grandmother happened to marry a man who was 1/2 african, and 1/2 creole. This makes me 1/16 African and 1/16 creole, or 1/8 African-creole. I also have Asian ancestry on my mother's side, her great-grandmother was full-blooded Asian.

I'll leave the comparisons of what I write with David Duke up to you, since you obviously seem to be an expert on white supremacists, but I don't recall any white supremacist pointing out that black people weren't given equal rights when they were freed from slavery. I think most white supremacists don't defend blacks, but again, I am not the expert that you apparently are.

I am not disturbed, I know my identity, probably better than you know your own. I have a very diverse racial background and heritage, but I identify with my strongest, Cherokee Native American. Now I realize that I am not "supreme" like you, because I have such a 'mongrel' mixture of ethnicity, but one really good thing comes from that... I can't logically accept ideals of racial supremacy. Which one would I pick to be the 'supreme' race, of all the choices I have available? And how could I claim to be part of that race, with all the other races coursing through my veins? You see, it would be kind of 'self-defeating' for me to have racist attitudes and beliefs.

But you see a Confederate flag in my avatar, and you see the name "Dixie" as my moniker, and without any further thought or consideration, you have applied a bigoted prejudiced stereotype to me. Oh, I'm not whining about that, I am not having a childish tantrum over it... I actually think it's astonishing how well you've exposed your own bigotry and prejudice, without me having to say a word.

The AZ law mirror the Federal law. There is no new provision in the AZ law that didn't already exist for Federal agents. To claim otherwise, is a distortion of the truth.. A LIE. You're quite proficient at lying, Bunky!

You can repeat that bullshit until the cows come home, you Dixie dunce...but as I linked on this thread earlier, what you say is NOT true. Here are some more examples:

Do conservatives really think new AZ immigration law is just like federal law?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004270035

MediaMatters is a LIBERAL website, owned and operated by LIBERAL propagandists. Now, most people understand, the way a website generates revenue is from advertising, and rates are determined by number of 'click-ins' to the website from other places. So you will forgive me for not wishing to contribute to the profits of left-wing propagandist websites. If you would like to cut-n-paste the relevant portions of their content, I'll be happy to address it, but I refuse to click the link.

I have read the Arizona law, and I am familiar with Federal Immigration law, and there is absolutely nothing permitted in the AZ law, which isn't already permitted in the Federal law. If there were, you all would be crowing about it from here to eternity, and you aren't. Instead, you are relegated to carnival barking for a left-wing propaganda outlet. Stick with the subject, it's a very easy challenge to prove your point, if you are correct. You don't need to promote left-wing propaganda outlets to do that.

Those who are "talking impeachment" are just as full of it as you are....and I'm not just whistl'in Dixie!
[/QUOTE]

Oh, no doubt they are full of shit, I don't think we'll see Republicans lining up to call for articles of impeachment against this president, especially in light of how Clinton's turned out. Unless there is something much worse to come down the pike, which becomes so unavoidable we can't ignore it. While that wouldn't totally surprise me, I don't presently see it going down. I do think it is interesting that Tancredo has compiled a list of very legitimate complaints which would normally 'rise to the level.' It certainly doesn't bode well for the man who promised to 'unite' us all.... guess that was another lie, huh?
 
If that's the best you can do, Southy...you should either quit as Dixie's lapdog or tell your mom to write better material.

You couldn't meet a simple burden of proof and got your Southern Man ass handed to you in the chronology of the posts....your denials non-withstanding. Grow up and deal, my Southern Man fool.
So says the guy who can't admit that he plagiarized me, and quits debate after debate after he's been cooked instead of admitting defeat. Libby you've turned into the prime joke in this forum, nothing more. "The chronology of the posts..." :lol:
 
Now Tom Tancredo is running for Governor of CO... In the American Constitutional Party. ;)

Goooooo Tom! :D
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I've already been through this with you. The other 7/8 are a mixture of about 20 different things, should I list them all again for ya, Bunky? What the fuck does this have to do with anything, anyway? Does everyone have to prove their 'minority' status to you before you'll grant them the decency of listening to what they have to say or something? I don't get it. Are you that much of a racist?

Your childish meltdown won't change the FACTS, my Dixie dunce. YOU originally told me that you opted to front your alleged Native American heritage in order to receive whatever compensations/breaks entitled under federal/state law. You then threw in some bullshit about 1/16 this and 3/8 that....and now you add yet another piece to the ever growing tale. But your CONSISTANT revisionist writings that are EXACT replicas of the guff found on the "intellectual" racist/bigoted sites like David Dukes leads one to the conclusion that either you are a very disturbed man with identity issues or you're just full of shit. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, bunky.
The only person who has been childishly melting down here is you, Chicklet. I am just trying to answer what appears to be important questions to you. You're a Liar! I NEVER ASKED ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL ETHNIC/RACIAL MAKE-UP...YOU OFFERED THE INFORMATION IN A LAME ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY YOUR RACIST REVISIONISM OF HISTORY REGARDING SLAVERY AND THE ROAD OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FROM THAT EVIL. Apparently, credibility relies on how much minority blood I have, and if I happen to have one drop of white European blood, I am not worthy of the same social status as you. Again, you lie! Typical racists bullshit.....Dixie lies about what others write and then fabricates what others are thinking...but NEVER can Dixie produce logical proof to his accusations. I happen to have done an extensive research on my family genealogy, and my paternal grandmother's mother was full-blooded Cherokee, making her half Cherokee, my Dad 1/4 Cherokee and me 1/8 Cherokee. My great-grandmother happened to marry a man who was 1/2 african, and 1/2 creole. This makes me 1/16 African and 1/16 creole, or 1/8 African-creole. I also have Asian ancestry on my mother's side, her great-grandmother was full-blooded Asian.

Who gives a damn? I don't.....all this does is demonstrate your personal obsession with race...and doesn't excuse your documented racist revisionism on these boards regarding black folk, the Civil War, slavery, civil rights....it just makes you more psychotic.

I'll leave the comparisons of what I write with David Duke up to you, since you obviously seem to be an expert on white supremacists, but I don't recall any white supremacist pointing out that black people weren't given equal rights when they were freed from slavery. No one said they were per se, my Dixie dunce. That's YOUR bullshit in a lame attempt to set the stage for your revisionist racism regarding the civil rights movement, the Civil War, etc. I think most white supremacists don't defend blacks, but again, I am not the expert that you apparently are. Given your constant revisionist bullshit about black people with regards to the Civil War, civil rights, the Democratic party, etc., your "defense" is something we can do without.

I am not disturbed, I know my identity, probably better than you know your own. Really? And since I've offered nothing other than my photo, it would seem that once again you've demonstrated your delusion that your opinion supercedes reality. I have a very diverse racial background and heritage, but I identify with my strongest, Cherokee Native American. Which contadicts that you told me how you 'opted' for you Native American identity on your drivers license solely to achieve whatever financial breaks you could get. Now I realize that I am not "supreme" like you, because I have such a 'mongrel' mixture of ethnicity, but one really good thing comes from that You're the one who brought up all this crap awhile back, bunky...you can project your BS on me because I'm not the one with the history of revisionist racist BS on these boards like you. I can't logically accept ideals of racial supremacy. Which one would I pick to be the 'supreme' race, of all the choices I have available? And how could I claim to be part of that race, with all the other races coursing through my veins? You see, it would be kind of 'self-defeating' for me to have racist attitudes and beliefs. Ahh, but one would have to actually believe the tale you spin here, my Dixie Dunce. And if one did buy it, then all your documented revisionist rants about Civil Rights, the Civil War, slavery that sure as hell are NOT in the positive support of black folk would point to some serious psychological problems with identity on your part.

But you see a Confederate flag in my avatar, and you see the name "Dixie" as my moniker, and without any further thought or consideration, you have applied a bigoted prejudiced stereotype to me. Oh, I'm not whining about that, I am not having a childish tantrum over it... I actually think it's astonishing how well you've exposed your own bigotry and prejudice, without me having to say a word. No, the avatar was coupled with the statements you made that reflected all the bigoted, revisionist clap trap found on the websites of white supremacist that revise history's record of the evils of slavery and it's significance to the "Confederacy"...that's what tipped me off about your bigoted mindset. Add to this your absurd accusations of me (you have NO PROOF other than your opinion), and you just fit the bill.


Quote:
The AZ law mirror the Federal law. There is no new provision in the AZ law that didn't already exist for Federal agents. To claim otherwise, is a distortion of the truth.. A LIE. You're quite proficient at lying, Bunky!

You can repeat that bullshit until the cows come home, you Dixie dunce...but as I linked on this thread earlier, what you say is NOT true. Here are some more examples:

Do conservatives really think new AZ immigration law is just like federal law?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004270035

MediaMatters is a LIBERAL website, owned and operated by LIBERAL propagandists. Now, most people understand, the way a website generates revenue is from advertising, and rates are determined by number of 'click-ins' to the website from other places. So you will forgive me for not wishing to contribute to the profits of left-wing propagandist websites. If you would like to cut-n-paste the relevant portions of their content, I'll be happy to address it, but I refuse to click the link.

And here is the A-Typical neocon dodge folks....our Dixie dunce AVOIDS the FACT that Media Matters DOCUMENTS everything it covers..and it is that documentation that dopes like Dixie cannot BS around. So instead we get some generalized neocon claptrap to avoid dealing with the actual content of the reference. In short, more intellectual cowardice from Dixie. Also note how he AVOIDED the other source material offered.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...-94795779.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us...chwartz&st=cse

http://azdatapages.com/sb1070.html#annotation/a0



I have read the Arizona law, and I am familiar with Federal Immigration law, and there is absolutely nothing permitted in the AZ law, which isn't already permitted in the Federal law. If there were, you all would be crowing about it from here to eternity, and you aren't. Instead, you are relegated to carnival barking for a left-wing propaganda outlet. Stick with the subject, it's a very easy challenge to prove your point, if you are correct. You don't need to promote left-wing propaganda outlets to do that.

Dixie, are you so fucking stupid as to think that repeating your opinion takes precedent over legal FACTS? Do you think that the chronology of the posts doesn't expose your folly? Grow the fuck up, Dixie.

Quote:


Those who are "talking impeachment" are just as full of it as you are....and I'm not just whistl'in Dixie!
[/QUOTE]

Oh, no doubt they are full of shit, I don't think we'll see Republicans lining up to call for articles of impeachment against this president, especially in light of how Clinton's turned out. Unless there is something much worse to come down the pike, which becomes so unavoidable we can't ignore it. While that wouldn't totally surprise me, I don't presently see it going down. I do think it is interesting that Tancredo has compiled a list of very legitimate complaints which would normally 'rise to the level.' It certainly doesn't bode well for the man who promised to 'unite' us all.... guess that was another lie, huh?

I already poked enough holes in Tancreado's rant to make him a joke...hell, at one point YOU inadvertently pointed out that Tancreado puts forth a dead issue as part of his "reason" to call for impeachment! You can repeat Tancreado's bullshit until you're blue in the face, my Dixie dunce, but reality will just pass you by.
 
Last edited:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment/

TANCREDO: The case for impeachment
Obama has violated his oath of office over immigration

By Tom Tancredo

Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.

For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."

Mr. Obama's paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to "fundamentally transform America." He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist - a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House.

Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.

Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.

Mr. Obama's actions, not just his words, show the threat he poses. A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children's future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents.

Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.
Some dumbass always talks impeachment, but it isn't going to happen!
 
No president yet has enforced our border. Not a single one. So to claim his lack of enforcement of the border is grounds for impeachment is sheer lunacy.
Yeah, think of the numbers than came over while Bush 43 was President, it is staggering! A time when the borders should have been far more secured!
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
If that's the best you can do, Southy...you should either quit as Dixie's lapdog or tell your mom to write better material.

You couldn't meet a simple burden of proof and got your Southern Man ass handed to you in the chronology of the posts....your denials non-withstanding. Grow up and deal, my Southern Man fool.

So says the guy who can't admit that he plagiarized me, and quits debate after debate after he's been cooked instead of admitting defeat. Libby you've turned into the prime joke in this forum, nothing more. "The chronology of the posts..." :lol:

:palm: See what I'm saying folks? Southy is such a intellectually dishonest child that he's starting to believe his own BS.

Someone explain to Southy that in order for me to "plagiarize" him, Southy would have had to put forth said information first. Well, I made a simple challenge...all he has to do is point out what post PRIOR to post #74 did he do that contains said information, and he's proven his point.

To date, Southy can't do it. But like the immature clown that he is, Southy will just continue to bray the false prentense like the jackass he is.....so much more to pity the Southern Man for. I leave him to his fate.
 
Dixie: The only person who has been childishly melting down here is you, Chicklet. I am just trying to answer what appears to be important questions to you.

You're a Liar! I NEVER ASKED ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL ETHNIC/RACIAL MAKE-UP...

Post #158 --Chicklet: "Interesting...so what's the other 7/8 chuckles? And you're telling me that you're non-white? You can "pass" for Hispanic?"

Really Chicklet? You didn't ever ask me what the other 7/8ths were? Well, it appears someone is sneaking into your computer room and posting under your name here, because in Post #158, you certainly DID ask me about my ethnic/racial makeup, and it wasn't the first time. You repeatedly want to question this, and infer that I am lying about what I am!

Look, I really wish that I was "racially pure" like you! Maybe then I could begin to understand your air of superiority and condescention toward people who aren't like you. It would help me to understand why it's so important to point out someone's ethnicity and race in a debate about something pertaining to race, and run them in the ground because they aren't one particular thing or the other. Perhaps I could better understand why stereotypes are so important and altruistic. But I guess, being that I am a MUTT, I will never know what that is like. I'll just have to read your postings to try and better understand racial supremacy and bigotry.
 
Dixie they talk about marrying cousins were yo come from. That doesn't mean educated people do what y'all do.
 
Given your constant revisionist bullshit about black people with regards to the Civil War, civil rights, the Democratic party, etc.

Here's where you are really turning up the LIE machine a notch. It's not ME who is revising history, with regard to these things, it is YOU! Among the revisionist lies you've tried to prop up, is the LIE that Congress "outlawed segregation" in 1875! Something most people with any education of Civil Rights, knows is just factually not true. There was a CRA passed in 1875, it had little to do with segregation, since that practice had not really begun to happen in America yet. In 1875, there was very little "segregation" as black people were simply dis-included altogether. It was actually the CRA of 1875, and other similar legislation, which lead to many of the segregationist policies we endured for the next century in America.

Another part of YOUR revisionism, is arguing that the Supreme Court didn't uphold segregationist law all that time, and acting as if it were something the Southern states did in sheer defiance of the law. Even when key legal cases are cited and it is shown to you, the ranting and raving continues, as you refuse to accept the historical facts. Now, here you are claiming I am a revisionist? Don't make me laugh Chicklet!
 
Its freakin' hilarious how the numbnuts peckerhead keeps on using mediamatters as a source for his "facts" and expects others to prove them wrong.....mm is nothing more than a far left propaganda site not to be trusted any more than bbart.....
Its a fuckin 'joke to keep using them as a "trusted source" .....
 
Its freakin' hilarious how the numbnuts peckerhead keeps on using mediamatters as a source for his "facts" and expects others to prove them wrong.....mm is nothing more than a far left propaganda site not to be trusted any more than bbart.....
Its a fuckin 'joke to keep using them as a "trusted source" .....
Yeah, Newsmax is sssssssoooooooo much better!
 
I have a very diverse racial background and heritage, but I identify with my strongest, Cherokee Native American.

Which contadicts that you told me how you 'opted' for you Native American identity on your drivers license solely to achieve whatever financial breaks you could get.

I never stated any such thing. As usual, you are interpretively reading what you wish into my statements, as you've done with other statements regarding civil rights, slavery, and the civil war. You are a basically dishonest poster, who simply can't bring himself to be the least bit honest in debate, and have to resort to literally claiming the opposite of what was said, to make your points.

I chose to identify as Native American for a variety of reasons. Mainly because I am more Native American than anything else, I am 1/8 Cherokee, but I also have some Creek and Choctaw in me as well. Now, I may have indeed said something about how nice it is that I am able to claim benefits as a tribal member, but I never said that was why I identified as Native American, you are lying about that.
 
Yeah, Newsmax is sssssssoooooooo much better!

Newsmax is considerably more reputable than MediaMatters. Although it is almost impossible to find a comparable right-wing equivalent to MM, it would be close to Breitbart's site, even though Breitbart doesn't "make up" his facts. Now, if some right-winger was here daily, arguing against the left, and repeatedly using Breitbart as his source of information to prove his points, what would you say about that? Fair and impartial? Or political hack? Be honest now! What would you call it?
 
Back
Top