Lol libs get so butt hurt when they have to face the truth.

SportsAndLady;1520055 wrote:Right because that's what they did. Watched a video and took a guess.

You can't be this stupid can you?

Do you have the ability to read?

I would ask if you could really be that stupid but you've proved it time and time over on here.

sleeper;1517783 wrote:and then vote for a Democrat!

Manhattan Buckeye;1517801 wrote:And the 2 municipalities are largely Black - this shouldn't be a political debate, but do you really think that was a bunch of people that voted for Romney? Did you watch the video? It is on the front page of Drudge.

jmog;1519745 wrote:1. Watch the videos, most of the people in them were African-American. (90%+ voted for Obama)
2. If they are on EBT, then they are probably below $30k/yr. (65% voted for Obama)

Statistics show that the people who stole from Walmart voted democrat with a very good certainty.

Just to answer the Sleeper/Zwick argument.

like_that;1520057 wrote:Lol libs get so butt hurt when they have to face the truth.

It really is true. They can't take the fact that their president was voted in by minority groups and are therefore suckling on the government teet, thus destroying the economy one unemployment check at a time.

But no, the black guy in Louisiana who has an EFT card def voted for Romney, because there were black people in Louisiana who voted for him. Lol.

Heretic;1520048 wrote:I've noticed you using a lot of "txt talk" in your posts recently. Did you, at some point, come to the conclusion that since your arguments weren't changing peoples' minds in the poli forum that you'd just go full circle and come off Full Retard so no one takes you seriously?

Y0u're hurting my f33lz!! Get in the game. I'm WAY too librul to be taken seriously in this place..."txt talk" or no "txt talk"...our devoted poli posters have been dismissing me as stupid, a fool, "pseudo-intellectual", douche, or some other lame insult for years. "txt talk" just makes it more entertaining for me. When you've got people suggesting that BHO is the son of the devil, that he used the NSA to defeat Mitt Romney, that he intentionally desires to bring down the United States, half a decade of predictions of the impending collapse of the United States etc. etc. I think you ought set your sights a little bit higher on what constitutes going Full Retard over there lol.

BoatShoes;1520067 wrote:Y0u're hurting my f33lz!! Get in the game. I'm WAY too librul to be taken seriously in this place..."txt talk" or no "txt talk"...our devoted poli posters have been dismissing me as stupid, a fool, "pseudo-intellectual", douche, or some other lame insult for years. "txt talk" just makes it more entertaining for me. When you've got people suggesting that BHO is the son of the devil, that he used the NSA to defeat Mitt Romney, that he intentionally desires to bring down the United States, half a decade of predictions of the impending collapse of the United States etc. etc. I think you ought set your sights a little bit higher on what constitutes going Full Retard over there lol.

Well, yeah, anyone with a brain knows Quaker and his sort are Full Retard, but I wouldn't think people of all beliefs would be so eager to join that club. But then, with poli board stuff, I only really go there to mock idiots, so whatever.

like_that;1520057 wrote:Lol libs get so butt hurt when they have to face the truth.

What 90% of people would observe as truth is distorted into a lie after passing thru the liberal filters. No different for the far right. But what is unique to liberals is a self-proclaimed intellectual elitism that embraces the same degree of ignorance it so loathes in the far right.

gut;1520367 wrote:What 90% of people would observe as truth is distorted into a lie after passing thru the liberal filters. No different for the far right. But what is unique to liberals is a self-proclaimed intellectual elitism that embraces the same degree of ignorance it so loathes in the far right.

What's funny is 99% of people on here truly believe there's a difference between the two parties. Both have poor, lazy pieces of shits and both have rich elitests. But since they pander to two different groups to get votes, people get caught up in the idea that either party is distinguishable from the other. Hate to let you guys down... They're not. And it's proven everytime they get into office. Both parties do the same exact bullshit as the other, just usually for different people who got them into office. We have so many people on here who live in a fairy tale land that Libs are this and pubs are that. They're the same fucking people doing the same fucking things!!!! That's why the poli board is insufferable.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1520391 wrote:What's funny is 99% of people on here truly believe there's a difference between the two parties. Both have poor, lazy pieces of shits and both have rich elitests. But since they pander to two different groups to get votes, people get caught up in the idea that either party is distinguishable from the other. Hate to let you guys down... They're not. And it's proven everytime they get into office. Both parties do the same exact bullshit as the other, just usually for different people who got them into office. We have so many people on here who live in a fairy tale land that Libs are this and pubs are that. They're the same fucking people doing the same fucking things!!!! That's why the poli board is insufferable.

I sometimes wonder what people expect. If reps remain stubbornly fixated on their agenda you get gridlock, and everyone roars about the ineffectiveness of Congress and approval ratings plummet. But if they find common ground to get something done, then everyone rails about phony campaign promises and concludes they are the same by virtue of agreeing on something.

I could just as easily argue the consistently low approval ratings for Congress suggest not that the parties are the same, but rather that the electorate is so disjointed and disparate that the relatively little common ground creates a false appearance the parties are the same, and that neither represents us. If the two parties were really the same, then shouldn't there be a fairly sizeable portion of the electorate they could satisfy and achieve closer to at least a 50% approval rating?

I mean, if they pander to two different groups then doesn't that necessarily imply they are different? The right and left are clearly different, and on most social issues the parties are different. The two parties have converged significantly on fiscal issues and security/defense, and I might argue that's a reflection of the moderate majority in this country.

That the parties are the same is most commonly and most loudly claimed by Libertarians who, quite honestly, can't come to grips with the fact they're too small of a minority to find significant representation in Washington. Libertarians may very well make-up a large portion of the intelligently informed, but the problem is that's a small % of the electorate.

gut;1520427 wrote:That the parties are the same is most commonly and most loudly claimed by Libertarians who, quite honestly, can't come to grips with the fact they're too small of a minority to find significant representation in Washington. Libertarians may very well make-up a large portion of the intelligently informed, but the problem is that's a small % of the electorate.

agreed

gut;1520427 wrote:I sometimes wonder what people expect. If reps remain stubbornly fixated on their agenda you get gridlock, and everyone roars about the ineffectiveness of Congress and approval ratings plummet. But if they find common ground to get something done, then everyone rails about phony campaign promises and concludes they are the same by virtue of agreeing on something.

I could just as easily argue the consistently low approval ratings for Congress suggest not that the parties are the same, but rather that the electorate is so disjointed and disparate that the relatively little common ground creates a false appearance the parties are the same, and that neither represents us. If the two parties were really the same, then shouldn't there be a fairly sizeable portion of the electorate they could satisfy and achieve closer to at least a 50% approval rating?

I mean, if they pander to two different groups then doesn't that necessarily imply they are different? The right and left are clearly different, and on most social issues the parties are different. The two parties have converged significantly on fiscal issues and security/defense, and I might argue that's a reflection of the moderate majority in this country.

That the parties are the same is most commonly and most loudly claimed by Libertarians who, quite honestly, can't come to grips with the fact they're too small of a minority to find significant representation in Washington. Libertarians may very well make-up a large portion of the intelligently informed, but the problem is that's a small % of the electorate.

I disagree, sorry. I'm definitely not a libertarian, I'm certainly a democrat if anything. But the hard facts are there is truly no difference in the two parties. Each party is backed by a big money donor. Each party takes care of who backs them. I could care less if a republican wins bc it's not going to help or hurt me anymore than if a democrat wins. Just because they pander to two separate groups, doesn't mean they give a shit about who they steal votes from. The dems care no more about the poor than the pubs care about Jesus. It's all lip service. If I were big business or big union then I would care who got elected. Until then, I'll go about life knowing neither give a shit about me. You're delusional or eternally optimistic if you think there's a distinguishable difference between the two.

'But the hard facts are there is truly no difference in the two parties."

perhaps not, but there is a HUGE difference in the way the media portrays them.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1520527 wrote:You're delusional or eternally optimistic if you think there's a distinguishable difference between the two.

Again, without a supermajority in both houses I don't know what you expect - they have to find common ground to pass anything.

There are very obvious differences. But much less so on fiscal and defense (which if that's all you care about they are going to appear much more similar). You're really not paying attention if you think the two parties are the same.

Manhattan Buckeye;1520572 wrote:'But the hard facts are there is truly no difference in the two parties."

perhaps not, but there is a HUGE difference in the way the media portrays them.

I'll give you that. But the media wasn't always pro lib. It certainly is now.

gut;1520427 wrote:I sometimes wonder what people expect. If reps remain stubbornly fixated on their agenda you get gridlock, and everyone roars about the ineffectiveness of Congress and approval ratings plummet. But if they find common ground to get something done, then everyone rails about phony campaign promises and concludes they are the same by virtue of agreeing on something.

I could just as easily argue the consistently low approval ratings for Congress suggest not that the parties are the same, but rather that the electorate is so disjointed and disparate that the relatively little common ground creates a false appearance the parties are the same, and that neither represents us. If the two parties were really the same, then shouldn't there be a fairly sizeable portion of the electorate they could satisfy and achieve closer to at least a 50% approval rating?

I mean, if they pander to two different groups then doesn't that necessarily imply they are different? The right and left are clearly different, and on most social issues the parties are different. The two parties have converged significantly on fiscal issues and security/defense, and I might argue that's a reflection of the moderate majority in this country.

That the parties are the same is most commonly and most loudly claimed by Libertarians who, quite honestly, can't come to grips with the fact they're too small of a minority to find significant representation in Washington. Libertarians may very well make-up a large portion of the intelligently informed, but the problem is that's a small % of the electorate.

I don't know about that. There's lots of libertarians who think that Ayn Rand had the magic answer to everything. Protip: She did not.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1520527 wrote:But the hard facts are there is truly no difference in the two parties.

I disagree. If the Republicans held every seat in the House, the Senate and held the Presidency and we had conservative jurists on the supreme court...you would have much different legislation and policy than if Democrats held every seat in the House, the Senate and held the Presidency and we had liberal jurists on the Supreme Court.

The notion that they're "the same" is that despite decently sizeable swings from election to election you don't get any real revolutionary change and progress muddles along leading to the perception that they're all "the same".

Of course there'd be different legislation passed. They're in different people pockets. Any and all legislation passed is to benefit their bankrollers. Sometimes that trickles down to you and I. Most often it doesn't.

no you displayed you gather your opinions by watching a video. ie: anecdotal evidence. Were you to have worked a shift as a cashier during the entire debacle, what you say may have some credibility. But , no, you watched a video.

The funniest thing about repubs is they get so angry at poor people who feed off the government, but a large portion of their party are poor southern red necks and love Jesus almost as much as food stamps. Repubs like to ignore that about their own party. I assure you that in a poor area like that who voted largely for Romney, there were plenty of rednecks who abused the EBT system that day. But keep ignoring they exist in your party lol.

Z4P, read again what I wrote.

I said, in the video, most of the people were AA. I then gave statistics that would point to agreement with sleeper and disagreement with you. Nothing more, nothing less.

I, for one, am not a republican and even if I was do NOT deny that there are MANY 'southern poor rednecks' that abuse the system.

However, your logical leap in assumptions about me is remarkable considering your level of education, but considering you're a liberal it doesn't surprise me! (that was tongue in cheek).