If you see someone with an Obama 2012 shirt on, try a different aproach. Talk to them like 'one of them' who's dissapointed with The O. Talk about how O gave more to Big Corporate America with the Bailouts than the evil Bush did. And what about the damn war? Now we're in libya?! Maybe not officially, but we all know it. Blah blah blah. Point out all the change he promised us, and point out how much things haven't got better. I've been enjoying this lately. Not like they will vote against him, just be unhappy little comrades. I piss in their granola just to make sour faces around their breakfast tables.
This is by far the best approach.
I think I've talked like 3-4 people at DU into voting independant or not really wanting to vote at all.
I reject your truths and substitute my own realities
You're in Bozeangeles, what do you expect? Arguing with a liberal is like wrestling a pig, you both get dirty but the pig ejoys it.
I have a very liberal friend that constantly accuses me of being a hard core republican because I often disagree with his views. Its pretty much his only rebuttal. Its quite entertaining as he often has the poor me attitude and in discussions just talks loudly whenever somebody disagrees with him.
SWR 556 Specwar, 762 Specwar, Octane 45HD, Spectre II; SilencerCo Osprey 45, Omega; AAC Pilot, 300TM; Ruger AC556
Rugged Oculus; Dead Air Sandman K
Nope, some quick Googling reveals that many are upset and saying that this is racist (including some posts over at 'yourBLACKworld'), along with people saying that Cain is for whites, not blacks, etc., etc. Are people really stuck on the color of skin? Absurd.
The color of someone's skin doesn't matter, it's the substance of their character that really matters. Of all the candidates, I feel Herman Cain represents my views the best. I don't care what color Obama's skin is, I don't like his character.
misfit762 wrote:The color of someone's skin doesn't matter, it's the substance of their character that really matters. Of all the candidates, I feel Herman Cain represents my views the best. I don't care what color Obama's skin is, I don't like his character.
Sadly not everyone thinks this way nor does everyone benefiting from the great experiment actually believe in it.
I'm sure many people will not vote for Cain because he's not acting up to their standard of "black".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Now I ask you, isn't that a shallow racist comment?
I will let you take a look at the painting again before I tell you my response. You may note right off the bat that his statement that there is "Not a non-white person" is inaccurate.
misfit762 wrote:The color of someone's skin doesn't matter, it's the substance of their character that really matters. Of all the candidates, I feel Herman Cain represents my views the best. I don't care what color Obama's skin is, I don't like his character.
Sadly not everyone thinks this way nor does everyone benefiting from the great experiment actually believe in it.
I'm sure many people will not vote for Cain because he's not acting up to their standard of "black".
Excuse me, acting down to their standard of black.
The most interesting thing I discovered about the painting is this.
There are two non-white people on the left of the 25 people in the forground crowd.
Note: TWO is 12.5% of 25.
According to the US census.... 12.6% of the USA is "black", whatever "black" means.
How is that for art representing reality?
I think the guy saw Tea party in the tag line and with only cursory review subconciously concluded that the crowd is all white without even realizing his mistake.
Sounds like a success of the media instilling Tea Party = racist.
The wealth redistribution discussion boils down to whether we are free and equal. If a man cannot own and control his produce and accumulation, he is not free. If another man can sieze the first man's produce and/or accumulation directly or indirectly through govt., they are not equal. Of the many wealth redistribution discussions I have had, these two basic principles when applied to all individuals win the argument everytime. Those in favor of redistribution are generally only in favor of others' wealth being redistributed.
fustercluck wrote: Those in favor of redistribution are generally only in favor of others' wealth being redistributed.
I've said that again and again; take any one of these OccupyBullShit protestors, and they have more than someone else. They want to distribute the wealth? Lead by example.
fustercluck wrote: Those in favor of redistribution are generally only in favor of others' wealth being redistributed.
I've said that again and again; take any one of these OccupyBullShit protestors, and they have more than someone else. They want to distribute the wealth? Lead by example.
My sense of the Occupy protestors, or as I chidingly call 'protists', has been summed up by Leo Tolstoy 114 years ago:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
These people are miseducated. A miseducated individual is more destructive than an uneducated one. Case in point - The Occupy protists
