osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:
Well, if you look at the types of women that reject the leftist types of political policies, they do seem to be women that either have some interest in wealthy men being able to succeed with little regard for the welfare of the poorer types or women like Palin and Bachmann that essentially want everybody to have to kowtow to the worthless book known as the Bible and its teachings which actually seek to subjugate women and others. So, it's not as if they don't have some problems.
Of course the failed economy stems directly from Bush's polciies which anyone was going to have a hard time correcting and which the Republican Tea Party types will only exacerbate for everyone other than the rich when they get in office most likely leading this country down the road to a civil war in the not too distant future or at the very least into a time of rampant lawlessness like the 1930s as many of the common people have to turn to crime and an entire generation of new Dillingers and Bonnie and Clydes rises up to express the disaffected resentments of the poor especially when The Republicans manage to cut out food stamps and welfare.
The mass of poor and greatly uneducated white folks that swell the Tea Parties' numbers and make it look like anything more than just a club of rich people upset that they're going to have to pay more in taxes to help out lower class Americans certainly are against Obama due to his skin color. Of course the more affluent members of the Conservative party (though they may also share racist tendancies) are primarilly against Obama because they definitely don't want to pay any more money to help ease the lot of the lower classes in this nation and to help them in that cause they enlisted the masses of the poor whites that don't know any more due to the fact that they're blinded by their religion's teachings.
Their racism is even apparent in their treatment of Herman Caine whom they're running as a Presidential candidate to deflate the charges of racism, however, you certianly don't see Caine coming anywhere near being the frontrunner of the Conservatives. No, that's Romney whom is very much emblematic of the old white religious boy's club that the Conservative party happens to be (even with Bachmann and Palin in the mix whose main role is to subjugate women as the book they follow calls for and to stroke the prejudices of the religious folks as I've mentioned before).
|
Mmmm. For one thing, the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated. For another, Herman Cain has far lower name ID than Romney, has no political experience, and has still found himself polling in third place at times. Not too shabby all things considered, and hardly indicative of the wild racism you're accusing conservatives of. And I'm not even sure where you were going with that first paragraph. It's okay to call non-leftist women sluts and cunts because they don't agree with you, or am I reading it wrong?
Not that it really matters. I rather enjoy arguing with sapphi, but your overreliance on stereotypes, tropes, and baseless generalizations is simply dull. This entire post is run of the mill Team Red vs. Team Blue stuff that I could get from any cable news channel, and it just makes my eyes glaze over every time you call someone a racist or a fundie as if that's a substantial argument. It isn't, so unless you can do better, I think we're done here.
|
In regards to your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated, I guess you didn't read the statistics that Happy Squirrel posted from USA Today that said that a combined 68% of Tea Party Members had only no college or some college. It's not as if the Tea Party is in any way a bunch of Ph. D. folks.
As for your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor, if you look at Happy Squirrel's statistics 55% of Tea Party members make over $50,000 a year which means that 45% of them don't.
And both of these statistics go along quite well with my contention that The Tea Party is made up by quite a few rich folks that don't want to pay any more of their money in taxes to really help out the lower classes in this country and that the group is made to look much bigger than it actually is by the amount of rather uneducated (68%) poor white people (79%) that have ingrained prejudices mainly stemming from The Bible and Conservative (70%) upbringings that bias them against Obama due to his skin color.
It certainly is a substantial argument because it's true. Sorry if the truth bites you in the butt.
|
its seems rather evident that your reading comprehension is low, but. those statistic prove that they are in line with the rest of the population.
and actually they have a higher percentage of black people than the regualr republican party.
and all you are saying is they have a 70% (number pulled out of your ass) Christian up bringing, meaning they are racist, using absolutely
no evidence to back it up. i could say liberals have a 80% non religious up bringing, ingraining racial and prejudious thoughts in them.
and you do know Christians give more to Charities than non-religous people do, right (4x more than others)
also conservatives give 30% more to charity, while earning 5% less on average than liberals.
so stop shitting lies all over the place
|
Regarding your first sentence: What you lack the brains to come up with an original insult, Sherlock? How weak can you get, badgenome pulled that one first.
Also, the 70% isn't pulled out of my rear, Dummy. It's based on the fact that in the past November elections 70% of the Christian votes went to Tea Party and Republican Candidates, so even though USA Today failed to provide the data on how many Tea Partiers are Evangelicals or Fundamentalists ( note 70% of American Christians fall into these two misguided groups) and due to the Tea Party's oft repeated mantra that they want to put God back in everything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI (see the number of signs in this video about the Tea Party advocating that the nation return to its false Christian roots (they must be meaning Salem, Massachusetts as the Founding Fathers had other beliefs), then there must be quite a bit of cross-over between the two groups.
Also, the charities that Christians mainly give to are their churches (which should not be tax deductable donations) and really shouldn't count as charitable donations seeing how many of those tax free dollars actually go into the upkeep of their churches and into their ministers pockets (which is a real sin that these kooks make far more money than legitimate school teachers) ather than to any real charitable operations.
If you remove the donations that Conservatives make to churches from the number of dollars donated to legitimate charities, then they donate far less than any other group.
