Why do California liberals hate poor, black women?
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
As that famous liberal, George Bernard Shaw, put it "the underclass has . . . no business being alive".
Having almost nothing to offer society these people are easily expendable.
Liberals would rather pursue problems that can be "solved"
Having almost nothing to offer society these people are easily expendable.
Liberals would rather pursue problems that can be "solved"
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Conservative: Empower a man to fish for himself, he'll eat for life.
Liberal: Give a man a fish, he'll vote for you for life.
Liberal: Give a man a fish, he'll vote for you for life.
topher5150
Dedicated LVC Member
there was another famous politician in recent history who had a "solution" to a "problem" any one guess who that was ;D
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
LoL, this is a great thread, kudos! Not even ten replies and it's a fallacious mess. Loaded question, sweeping generalization, nazi connection and topped with an ample supply of testicular fondling.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Examples?
...except for the testicular fondling, please.
Why do California liberals hate poor, black women? The Shaw example as being the liberal norm. Politician with a "solution" was a reference to Hitler.
Liar, that's your favorite part. Don't lie.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Your papers, please
I was born in East L.A.
...depends on who is doing the fondling...
topher5150
Dedicated LVC Member
actually i was referring to Hitler and "the final solution"
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
...let's not forget "and TheDude doesn't bother to read any of the articles."
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
...let's not forget "and TheDude doesn't bother to read any of the articles."
Liar. I just don't read yours. Though that's irrelevant with what I said.
Merry Christmans, Fossten. May you be showered with guns, bullets, poker chips and diet sodas.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Couldn't ask for a better list myself. Thanks.Merry Christmans, Fossten. May you be showered with guns, bullets, poker chips and diet sodas.
So you think George W. Bush is preparing to emerge as the fascistic leader of the United States, kill and inprison those that disagree with him, and engage in a genocide to kill an entire population of people based upon their race?
Hit the eggnog early this season, did you?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Let's make the thread about you...troll.
Actually, I didn't introduce any "final solution" language into the thread. I was speaking of American's like Walter Lipman and Woodrow Wilson.
Does anyone else remember that the Democrats controlled the legislative branch since 2006?
Many of the problems facing the country, and the world, are bigger than any one administration. I frequently ask, but no one can tell me specifically the policies of George W. Bush , unique to him, that caused this economy to be on the brink of disaster. His failure was continuing the policies of the past that were unsustainable.
The current regime in power is magnifying the mistakes of the past and advancing a failed ideology and philosophy with an aggressiveness not seen before. The consequences of all of this will be very bad.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That's far from saying that he caused it. Nice backpedal, again.
Just curious, do you know how much money has been spent on the war so far, and how that compares to how much money Obama has spent in the first 10 months of his term?
Name a war that has not escalated; especially toward the end of the conflict.
...things were very stable over there before the election of 2000.
And it's not like the President PRIOR to him had established a policy of regime change in Iraq as late as 1998.
The war in Iraq isn't the problem here.
The war in Iraq didn't cause bubble economies.
The war in Iraq didn't cause GM to go bankrupt.
It didn't cause unemployment to go into the double digits.
It didn't run up $14T dollars of debt.
It isn't why the only growth sectors of our economy are federal jobs and healthcare- and given time, the government would like to make them one in the same.
The war in Iraq isn't the reason why the Congress wants to run this years debt ceiling up to $2T.
And the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the erosion of our liberties.
Did the war "help things?"
That's a strange choice of words when addressing a military action.
We can argue the merits of the Iraqi invasions and the strategic failures that are associated with it, but it has nothing to do with the state of the country. And it's impossible to discuss the ultimate outcome because that's yet to be determined. In the long run, the idealistic foreign policy applied may be extremely beneficial to us and the stability of the region. More so than the invasion in Afghanistan, which I'm sure you'll argue is the "just war" and the one we "really needed to commit too."
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Absurd. You just contradicted yourself in one short sentence. :bowrofl:
WW2 escalated with D-day, again when we actually pushed into Germany and with the invasion of Okinawa. The Nuke was used to prevent further escalation (because of the Bushido culture that would have had Japan fighting to the last man). Almost all wars escalate at some point. It is how you move from a stand still toward victory (or at least attempt to). Another example, the Tet offensive...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Heh. You brought up WWII, hijacker. This thread is about cancer.