Are you talking like a conservative lately?

[michigandem58]

"Don't call me a racist because I disagree with you."

"I disagree with Obama so I must be a racist." (sarcastically)

etc.

Maybe the fact you sound like a conservative should give you pause.

[Aerows]

1. It's the new "hip to be square" around here

You dislike something the President does? Racist.

[Ash_F]

2. Hmm.

[Aerows]

4. Because we all live in Libya

and not the US. We are responsible for whatever happens to everyone, everywhere, including countries we have no jurisdiction over.

[Ash_F]

5. That was the side Obama supported. /nt

[Aerows]

8. Which side?

All I saw was humans treating other humans like shit, which is a position I'm pretty sure no one takes, regardless of whatever political side of the fence they stand or straddle on. Congratulations on dragging the discourse into a new direction. WTF are you talking about is now the clear standard.

[Ash_F]

13. Are you really that ignorant about what was all over the news only two years ago?

The memory hole in real time.

[Aerows]

14. Well, that's going to gain you supporters

Good luck with that approach.

[Ash_F]

27. At some point you have to try to help yourself

I don't think Obama supported a racially homogenized government in Libya over the previous racially-mixed one because he was motivated by racism. I think he was motivated by pressures from the right. I still think he was wrong to do so, but not a racist.

In the the same way, people who want him to stop bowing down to the right are not racist.

[Aerows]

113. Yes, at some point you have to help yourself

You have to decide whether allegiance is more precious than the State.

[dawg]

3. There is nothing conservative about ....

Not wanting to be called a racist. Now attempting to justify government soeveillance ...

[treestar]

6. The same straw man they used

It's holding Obama to a higher standard - but dealing with that is too tough, so fall into martyrdom OMG you called me a racist! - a deliberate misunderstanding of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Let me try a logic exercise with you.

Since I object to government spying,

And I want candidates to at least try to follow through on campaign promises (like a more transparent government)

I am a racist? And a conservative

We call this a straw-man...

Hi, I really needed that clarification.

Hand over the popcorn, this should be real entertainment.




Ah much better...

By the way you also get one of these

[treestar]

15. It's oversimplifying to say the government is not more transparent

Across the boards it might be more transparent. The CIA is the one part of government that is supposed to be secretive. Security clearances and all that.

There are many other agencies and they might be much more transparent. No one has discussed those.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. You try filing FOIAs.

I recently had that experience with the Dept of the Interior.

By the way...I am done answering to you.

[treestar]

20. I have filed FOIAs

with various departments.

They came in faster than they had during the Bush Administration.

Now whether that is proof I can't say, but people could at least look into it rather than overgeneralizing, based on the one agency that has reason to be secretive, that the administration is not being transparent.

[woo me with science]

25. Hey, Nadin, do you know what ever happened with this?

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Nope

But it is in the back of our minds every time.

We filed one over two folks detained over a local fire...not national security.

We got the answer from Cal Fire kind of on the side. Every local agency has been begging the DOI to ban shooting during fire season. Like it is in state and county lands. Guess what was the cause of the fire?

DOI had jurisdiction since the fire moved into federal lands, and Federal Rangers did the taking into custody shtick.

We are still waiting for an answer from the Feds...three weeks on. I consider that hardly transparent.

[Aerows]

21. What isn't oversimplifying

is to state that several DUers called other DUers racists for daring to disagree with President Obama. There is no oversimplification there. Excuse some of us if it got our dander up because we hated this same thing under Bush, and don't like it under Obama and won't like it if it continues under 2016.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Hey, to be fair

We were only called un-American and traitors.

I guess that's better.

[Aerows]

26. You are right

It was a lot better just being called a traitor.

[treestar]

24. I don't think they specifically called anyone a racist

but wondered if he was being held to a higher standard. Honestly when Clinton was President I remember criticism but not so constantly and so jumped on so quickly. Hopefully the next President is a Democrat and likely to be white, so we'll see.

[Aerows]

33. Treestar

You are as bad as ProSense with trying to whitewash (pardon the pun) when attacks get made upon people that simply disagree with President Obama on anything. I expect you to show up in a thread chiming in if he decided that bombing Seattle would be a good idea, and you would be right there with ProSense explaining to the rest of us why those damn Washingtonians need to go.

And I apologize to the residents of Seattle for pulling that example out of my hat, substitute it with your own town. Those two would explain away your life for you because Obama said.

[treestar]

36. Obama is not going to bomb Seattle

Or eat babies for breakfast.

[Aerows]

38. If he did

You'd be in the thread explaining to the rest of us why it would be a good idea.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Thank you for reminding me why Treestar

Reminded me of that other person.

And the photo of the queen is kind of irony on steroids.

I think it is time to once again improve my DU experience and avail myself of the list. For the record, you are correct, and Treestar will also explain to us that this would be...legal.

So with no further, Treestar is going into the Aparatchick list. Thanks...I really needed that reminder.



I know you don't use it, but it is really a way to clear the air from propaganda.

[treestar]

53. I think that's unfair

People you may be outing yourselves. You are saying it is wrong to support the Democratic party.

While people to the left are allowed on DU, so are Democrats. You find yourself so far to the left that you can't tolerate Democrats.

[treestar]

42. Actually for that, no I wouldn't

In fact I'm usually not even defending him, just refusing to jump on the latest outrage bandwagon.

Too many times it has happened, over and over. Someone finds an issue they think will work and then Prosense or someone finds out why it's exaggerated. Maybe the "critics" should quit trying too hard, then I might see something wrong being done. Most of them simply don't respect the separation of powers and it's too easy to take their "criticism" apart and find the problem with it.

The critics don't do a very good job. They haven't found anything sustainable, and given all their efforts, that's pretty telling.

I remember one post that said, "What would make you turn on Obama?" that made it clear what the real intent was. For me, it's the bombing of Seattle. Or maybe refusing to leave office, having created a dictatorship through political suppression brought about by NSA spying.

I would support any Democrat in the White House. Short of the above things, of course.

[Aerows]

48. You will support any Democrat in the White House

And if they want to bomb Seattle and eat puppies, you will do your best to explain away their behavior.

Sorry, you are just like ProSense in that vein, and it is disgusting when people value party and personality over principle. If it takes eating puppies and bombing US cities to cause you to break with your party, you need a serious reality check.

President Obama told us to hold his feet to the fire, and spying on Americans is one where he's going to feel the flames. That should have ended under Bush, but it didn't. Now President Obama is getting burned for letting it continue.

[treestar]

52. I think the Democratic party principles are pretty good for the most part

And yes, I support them. What's wrong with that? They rarely come up with and pass bills I would abhor. And one can't have everything in a political party. I don't see what is wrong with their principles. They are not revolutionary and are in the system, not trying to destroy it. is there something inherently wrong with that? Why can't we support the Democratic party here without being called "disgusting?"

[OrwellwasRight]

68. I'm sorry? "Haven't found anything sustainable" to criticize the President about?

Where do we start?

In a prime example of poor negotiating strategy (even if you didn't want it in the end, which I won't argue about): You do NOT cut off your left flank and make clear that not only single payer, but also the public option is off the table. Again, doesn't matter if he wanted it in the end, but by cutting off his left flank, he had no cards to play, thus the bill was a multibillion dollar giveaway to the health insurance companies.

No one prosecuted for the Financial Meltdown.

Promising to renegotiate NAFTA. Criticizing US trade policy for not protecting labor and the environment, saying the investor protections go too far. And then pursuing the TPP, the largest trade agreement ever for the US (except for the WTO), using the exact same model he criticized.

Not a single word in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act. No effort to improve labor rights. After he promised to do so.

Worst deal ever on taxes at end of 2010. ALL Bush tax cuts extended and all he got in exchange was a lousy temporary extension of unemployment? And allowed the Estate Tax law (which was going to zero% -- no taxes on estates of any kind or size) to remain in place. The cost comparison of the trade off is astounding.

Could have fixed the Fed Ex loophole that allows FedEx to hire employees and pretend they are independent contractors through IRS action. Didn't do it.

No real response to the BP disaster to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Proposing to cut Social Security.

Made the sequester deal when in fact we don't need any budget balancing at all. You balance the budget in good times (just like Clinton did). You do not balance the budget in bad times. That is Keynesian economics 101. What we need is a gigantic investment in the economy to put people back to work and get the economy growing again. But no, Obama keeps talking about the grand bargain and all the cuts he'll make before he has bothered to fix the economy. The sequester is only hurting job creation and working people. And while he does have a Congress that refuses to spend, he could refuse to sign the stupid austerity budgets and sequester bills. HE doesn't. He signs.

Instead of forcing Congress's hand to fix sequester, he signed the airport fix so that his rich friends could continue flying without delays.

And these are just the sellouts to his friends on Wall Street.

Need I also raise:

Guantanamo not closed. (And while yes Congress defunded any attempt to move the prisoners here, he could have closed down the prison by letting people go. After all, they have been charged with no crime and already served lots of time for nothing.)

Deporting more people than Bush

Continued assault on marijuana dispensaries.

Continued use of the PATRIOT Act to spy on Americans in violation of our 4th Amendment rights.

We're STILL in Afghanistan. Still.

Face it, this man is pro-corporate, DLC, New Dem, pro-business, etc. He is being criticized no more and no less than the last Democratic president we had who sold the working class down the river in order to appease Wall Street (Clinton). If you and your ilk can't face real criticism and have to call us racist, then so be it. When standing up for the for the working class in America is racist, it's a sad, sad day. I hope you can eat your money. I can't.

[treestar]

71. All of that has been dealt with, over and over

When you mention Gitmo is undermines your arguments as it's clear Obama did all he could. That shows you are in bad faith to start.

[Aerows]

90. Had it been dealt with

People wouldn't be complaining about it over and over, because it hasn't been.

[OrwellwasRight]

110. "has been dealt with"?

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Let's start with just one: How has the president's anti-worker TPP trade agreement been "dealt with"? Did he stop negotiating it? Did he change its direction so it will be pro-worker? Did he take investor-to-state dispute settlement out of it? How has it been "dealt with"? It is an ongoing outrage, as are the corporate Christmas tree ACA, the failure to prosecute anyone on Wall Street, the failure to advance labor law reform, and on and on. . . these have not been "dealt with." They continue to harm working Americans.

What is your definition of "dealt with"? Does it mean you made an excuse for pro-corporate behavior and gave up caring about your working class compatriots who join you in the Democratic Party? I don't call that "dealing with it." I call that excuse-making.

And as to Guantanamo: As I said, but which you ignored, Congress prevented him from spending money to bring Guantanamo prisoners here. Congress did not prevent him from simply releasing these prisoners who are being held contrary to US law (they are being held without charge, just like South Africa used to hold black South Africans). He could have simply done that, or even threatened to do that, which would have brought the crazies to the table if they indeed felt the detainees were a threat to the US. He didn't. Don't call me names (e.g., "bad faith&quot until you deal with arguments.

It is NEVER OK to violate the US Constitution. NO ONE is above the law. If Bush wasn't, Obama isn't. What don't you get about that?

[Generic Other]

115. What they mean by dealt with is that anyone who has brought up substance

as you have dared to do is labeled a traitor, a hater, a rightwing Libertarian Trotzkyite Fox News loving racist buzzkill.

[MNBrewer]

51. Anyone who thinks Obama is being held to an unfair, "higher" standard is crazy

[treestar]

54. that was helpful.

Let's take Bill clinton. He betrayed you didn't he? He signed NAFTA and welfare reform.

[Aerows]

56. Pretty much

but to hear ProSense and Treestar tell it, he's being persecuted.

[dawg]

63. You didn't have DU during the Clinton Presidency.

He pissed me off spectacularly.

[Scootaloo]

84. No, it's flat-out lying.

Nobody calls you a racist for "disagreeing." I know you want to hammer nails in your hands and feet and clal yourself a martyr or something, some noble innocent victim of those howling moonbat race-baiting devil leftists or whatever you're going off on... but that's not how it works.

Very, very few people accuse racism unless they seriously perceive racism. If you're having it thrown at you, it's probably because you did something or said something that person perceives as racist. You may not agree, but it doesn't kill you to ask, "why might they think that?"

For me, the cue is the extraordinarily high standard some hold Obama to, when compared to past presidents. What staggers me is that a philandering doofus who signed NAFTA, DOMA, and "welfare reform" into law still has DU'ers fawning at his feet like puppies, but for a program he has continued but did not begin, Obama is the fucking devil,an evil, reprehensible, stasi, right-wing turd-in-a-punch bowl. One standard for Clinton, another standard for Obama. That sets off my racism alarm - the idea that one president has to be twice as good in order to get half the credit.

Of course, it's easier to just assume everyone who disagrees with you is a howling moonbat race-baiter, I suppose. Gives you a nice protective bubble where you never have to think about anything that comes out of your mouth (so to speak).

[Aerows]

86. It has already happened

People have in broad swaths been called racist for thinking that the NSA program is wrong. We are suddenly anti-Obama, and suddenly it is because of racism. Please don't pretend you didn't see three or four days of DU history and are pretending that didn't happen.

If you didn't see it because you have been away for a week, I understand, but otherwise, there is no excuse.

Black people have been called racist for calling this NSA bullshit out, and if that doesn't make you a shade stunned, then I don't know what to say.

[KittyWampus]

92. Oh dear, you think this started with Snowden/NSA criticisms? How precious.

[Scootaloo]

95. Show me. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Problem is you can't show me even one person who 'fawns' over Bill Clinton who calls Obama

out for the same things, much less uses any of the string of absurd ppr' worthy adjectives you toss about 'the fucking devil, staasi' turd, reprehensible. You can not demonstrate that this double standard you claim is anything but fiction in need of a hard sell, hence the word avalanches and extreme rhetoric.
You say there are 'some' who display this extraordinary double standard. This is the 'cue' from which you draw conclusions. But it is a fiction you made up. Show me someone fawning over Clinton about DOMA while attacking Clinton. Show me.
Me and my friends, straight and gay, were protesting DOMA and DADT at the time. Millions of us voted for Obama instead of Hillary BECAUSE of DOMA and DADT.
So support your assertions, your characterizations, your observations, your turd in a devil's punch bowl poetry on the subject. Show it to be true.
Otherwise it is just you shouting and screaming and using lots of strong words. Why not back up them up?

[Th1onein]

76. "There are many other agencies and they might be much more transparent. No one has discussed

those." REALLY?

How about the Dept of Education and the FDA? There is a story from McClatchy just this morning detailing a program put into place by Obama, that instructs workers in those agencies to inform on each other for leaking NON-classified information.

Are you sure you want to make this argument?

[treestar]

78. I don't think you've zonked this argument

with that. No links for that, and I'm not going to conclude your conclusions are valid.

[Th1onein]

81. Are we reading the same DU?

Because here it is, in all it's glory: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023072740

[treestar]

82. Having followed several links there

to other links, it all links back to itself. There doesn't seem to be actual proof of this program.

[Th1onein]

83. What you are saying is false, on it's face.

I suppose McClatchey didn't write the story, huh?

This is getting ridiculous.

[treestar]

104. That's the only place it is coming from.

And there doesn't seem to be much real confirmation there, just a lot of opinion that it's a terrible thing.

[Th1onein]

116. Given the fact that McClatchy was one of the media groups that actually told the truth about

the Iraq War, I think I'm going to go ahead and trust them on this one.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. That's as dishonest as when you said 'gay people have plenty of rights' and claimed that

there is only one right we don't have in a country that provides zero protection from discrimination to LGBT people.

[cali]

9. maybe your inane op should give you pause.

maybe the fact that you sound like an authoritarian apologist should give you pause.

or whatever.

silly op.

[Zorra]

60. +1

[geek tragedy]

10. People confuse Tea Party-style tone and hatred of Obama for conservatism.

Perhaps understandably so.

But some on the way far left hate Obama just as much as some on the way far right do.

That's always been the case.

Just because they are on the left does not mean they don't want Obama to fail. Indeed, they view Obama's goal as passing into law a rightwing fascist agenda, so of course they want him to fail.

[cali]

11. and most people here who criticize the President don't hate him at all.

I'm sure you'd agree with that.

[geek tragedy]

17. Criticism on policy certainly isn't hate.

People having orgasms because a foreign political figure 'destroys' Obama while denouncing not only him but Michelle, on the other hand . . .

[Aerows]

23. And having an orgasm

because you can call people out for being racist when all they do is criticize a policy that they criticized under Obama's predecessor isn't any better.

[geek tragedy]

30. I generally disapprove of the charge of racism in policy discussions.

Sure, some antagonism towards him from some white people on the left is based on race, but it's reckless to make a charge against a policy critique or against critics without evidence, e.g. calling him an Uncle Tom.

[Aerows]

41. Can you point to a post that

called him an Uncle Tom? Because I can directly point at 3 different threads that called people racists (on the internet, without knowing their race, mind you) for disagreeing with President Obama.

[geek tragedy]

45. From people here, no.

Famous leftists, sure.

John Pilger called him a "glossy Uncle Tom."

[sweetloukillbot]

108. As did Ralph Nader n/t

[KittyWampus]

94. Again, it's cute you think this behavior began only recently with Snowden/NSA.

[cali]

35. I agree with that.

[geek tragedy]

44. We've been agreeing too much lately.

[cali]

46. ah well, wait a minute and we'll find something to scrap over.

[Union Scribe]

61. I want conservative policies to fail, absolutely.

I want chained CPI to fail. I want TPP to fail. I want the idea of neo-liberal/conservative foreign policy to fail. I want education deform to fail. I don't care who stands behind those ideas.

[geek tragedy]

67. Do those policies reflect the overall nature

of Obama's agenda?

[OrwellwasRight]

69. Yes.

He offered chained CPI. It's in his policy document.

He is the President. Only he can direct trade policy. He directed the TPP to go forward. He directed that it be negotiated as NAFTA+, and it is. If he didn't want to move ahead with the TPP, he could stop it or change its direction.

There is no one else to blame for what the President does. He's the Effing President for cripe's sake.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. You ought to take this piece of crap OP and flush it.

[stillwaiting]

28. + 1 nt

[99Forever]

65. No kidding.

The whole authoritarian "how do we silence the ugly truth" thing, is getting stupider by the minute, as are the toadies trying to do it.

[The Link]

16. Do you find yourself defending conservative ideas to the bitter end?

Marriage is between a man and woman (until you evolve when it appears politically safe to do so)

Social security needs to be cut to save it.

Perpetual warfare is necessary.

Drones are humane ways to kill people, guilty and innocent.

Etc....


Maybe the fact that you think like a fascist should give you pause.

[East Coast Pirate]

47. Not to mention VERY conservative on environmental issues.

[PDJane]

19. No, I don't.

[Herlong]

29. Nope. I'm me.

And after they stop shaking or stirring Obama, they would figure out Obama. Go from there to make America, America.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

32. Don't forget the anti govt. screed

That's been very vogue lately. They're watching us through our Teevees, don't you know.

[backwoodsbob]

34. oh give it up

de we really need to go there for the hundredth time?

[GoCubsGo]

49. +1

Thank you!

[HiPointDem]

37. yeah, sure, that's the ticket.

[The Link]

43. ...

[backwoodsbob]

58. that's it

anyone who disagrees with the president is a Hannity listening fasict racist who hates our freedoms

[Union Scribe]

62. Welcome to DU, lol.

Odd for someone to sign up to a site to post how much they hate the posters there, but whatever.

[Tx4obama]

64. Maybe Hannity and all those Fox folks 'have' infiltrated DU and we just don't know it yet.

That 'could be' what's going on here lately.

[RetroLounge]

66. Are they running out of bodies to throw into the fray?

are you the reinforcements?



RL

[MNBrewer]

50. SO now the smear is conservatism.... perfect.

It's going to be a long, hot, stinky summer on DU.

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. It's suddenly "conservative" to state the utterly obvious truth? Bullshit.

I have no problem if a conservative also says "Don't call me a racist because I disagree with you." Just because a conservative says something valid neither invalidates that statement nor does it make me a conservative.

Fact: my disagreeing with the president over this surveillance state horseshit has nothing whatsoever with race. Anyone stupid and cowardly enough to call me a racist on that basis can go fuck themselves.

Hard.

Without lube.

[michigandem58]

72. Yet concerns about racism are sneered at here

and that's a disturbing trend.

[Lizzie Poppet]

74. No one's sneering at actual, valid racism.

They're sneering at transparent attempts to label any disagreement with the president as "racism," and to be blunt, mere sneering at that sort of idiotic, insulting bullshit is a very mild response indeed.

[michigandem58]

75. "Valid" racism? Is that like "legitimate" rape?

n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. No. It's like the actual racism many on the right engage in, WRT President Obama

This stands in stark contrast to the false accusations made by people of your ilk in an attempt to excuse every new revelation about Obama's global spy program. I'm not really sure which group makes me want to retch more--something to ponder.

[Lizzie Poppet]

80. Welcome to Ignore.

Okay, you just made my Ignore list with that little outburst of abject fuckwittery. If you can't manage to discern the difference between actual expressions of racism and simply disagreeing with the actions of a politician who happens to be black, then you're not someone I want to waste my time attempting rational conversation with. That you responded with that ridiculous, insulting analogy merely seals the deal.

Critical thinking: perhaps you've heard of it.

Buh-bye...

[Scootaloo]

85. Race has never been DU's strong point n/t

[Ms. Toad]

98. Concerns about racism are not sneered at here.

Accusations pf racism leveled against people who disagree with actions the president has engaged in, particularly those actions which are antithetical to the platform he ran on - merely because he is black are not concerns about racism.

Those allegations are using the label of racism as a weapon against people who are not engaging in racist behavior merely because you disagree with them and - in a particularly offensive twist - for the purpose of stifling dissent because you know allegations of racism would carry a particular sting in a progressive community whether or not those allegations have any basis in reality.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Kick n/t

[Marrah_G]

70. Since I refuse to break the rules....

I'm going to put you on ignore rather then tell you where I think you should go.

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. Or maybe those hurling ridiculous and baseless charges should consider the consequences

of their actions?

Besides, we have and have had a very conservative faction here since the inception of DU.

[leeroysphitz]

79. omg n/t

[BOG PERSON]

87. i keep having sadistic fantasies about ppl who have undermined my personal brand

[Blue_In_AK]

88. Bullshit post,

but do go on with your bad self.

[xchrom]

89. are you sounding like a fascist tea bagger lately? cause this sure does. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. when people opposed the expansion of surveillance when Bush/Cheney were in power was that racism?

When people oppose a program while President Obama is in office that they would have without one second of hesitation also opposed when Bush Bush/Cheney were in office - is that racism?

When people defend the expansion of a surveillance program while President Obama is in office that they would have immediately and aggressively opposed had exactly the same expansion occurred during the Bush/Cheney years, what is that? It is probably not racism. But it is a lack of principles and integrity.

[michigandem58]

99. You need to read Pelosi's fact sheet

That's a false equivalency.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. oh nonsense - You would not be justifying this expansion if there was a Republican President.

This cold blooded sophistry begs ridicule no matter how anyone tries to spin it - The surveillance state has been expanded and this is dangerous. Even if President Obama keeps to all the dotting of the "I's" and the crossing of the "T's" and never abuses this system - The instruments of totalitarianism are now in place waiting for some future Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft. You would not be justifying this if there was Republican President. Defending this because it's our guys doing it is truly shameless.

[Vinnie From Indy]

93. No, but strangely I have been walking like an Egyptian

eom

[liberal_at_heart]

96. you can call me anything you like.

[npk]

97. Maybe the fact that President Obama is acting like a conservative should give you pause.

[Puzzledtraveller]

114. ouch, that'll leave a mark

[Ms. Toad]

100. This is patently offensive.

I have been opposed to clandestine government surveillance for more than 4 decades - through both republican and democratic administrations. It is not racist to maintain the same opinion merely because the current president happens to be black. It is also offensive of you, and others, to attempt to use the label "racism" to resolve a disagreement over principles which have nothing to do with race - and then, when I call you on it, to suggest that being offended by your coercive use of the racist label means I am conservative.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. I go to Market Street in San Francisco and bark about a flat tax to passerby. Why?

[morningfog]

106. For fuck's sake. It is because the apologists have their

backs against the wall and all they have left is the race card.

[michigandem58]

109. "The race card" = conservative lingo

n/t

[morningfog]

111. LOL! THis is too fucking funny!~

Thanks for the laugh.

[duffyduff]

107. Obama wouldn't make the grade with you because

not only does he talk like a conservative but he IS one.

[sibelian]

112. No "talking like a conservative" doesn't "give me pause".

I don't care what conservatives think, I care what I think.

[Bonobo]

117. You should add the whole "Godamn commie-lovin' traitor" routine too. nt