Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: These aren't "protests"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: These aren't "protests" Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 9:46:03 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Once you've understood what actually happened and shown enough knowledge to discuss this you can ask all of the stupid leading questions you wish. In the mean time make declarative statements and take my statements as a whole rather than trying to cherry pick and bait me.


I was cherry picking because I quoted you saying that the Dems intentionally crashed the economy?
Sorry, I guess I just got excited because it was my favorite part.

I get that you're desperate to hold the Democrats entirely responsible but I think you're alluding to more than incompetence as the cause. It seems there was a deliberate plot involved both before and after the crash. This rabbit hole must go deeper than brainwashed sheeple like me could ever comprehend... especially since all we do is watch MSNBC, worship Hillary and angrily accuse people of being racists.

I might point out that Barney Frank himself disagrees with your version of the story, not that you would ever take him at his word:

http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=382689

But seriously, why is it that every time a crisis occurs, the RWNJs are right there with a conspiracy theory to explain it all as being the product of insidious, predatory minds? Is it totally beyond the scope of reason to suggest that maybe the real problem was simply yet another tremendous failure to communicate? Or that competent people make mistakes due to their own deep-rooted ideological beliefs? Why does it always have to come back to 'these evil government sociopaths are trying to ruin our lives for their own personal gain'? Why can't we simply admit that sometimes our ideologies fail us or blind us to the truth, despite our good intentions?

I highly doubt that the government or any one political party is comprised almost exclusively of soulless predators. Even Trump is an egomaniac who probably only became fascist due to a lack of self-awareness... I mean, he has already admitted that he hates to read books and most of what he says has been gleaned from the same backwards trash that gets endlessly regurgitated on boards like these in discussions like this. He probably just thinks the presidency will get him laid, and his immaturity and incompetence is dangerous, but I don't think his main goal is to destroy America. The fact that he probably will is beside the point. And risking the continued prosperity of America and its values is pretty much what you're accusing the Dems of if you seriously think they would intentionally crash the economy.

Most politicians want the economy to succeed and America to be great... if only because success is easier to turn into votes and being corrupt puts you at a risk of being caught, and being immature means you won't last long. The GOP (not Trump) dreams of a return to the glory days of Reagan, the Dems want FDR or possibly some variant of European-style socialism... sure they bend the rules in pursuit of their goals, but mostly because they feel that they can do good things for the country. Of course there are idiots in every field, but for the majority the issue isn't whether or not they're all slimy inhuman monsters or noble defenders of human righteousness, it's whether or not what they believe is right is good or bad for the country.

If you're actually interested in unity, you should be a little more diplomatic and stop filling your head with paranoid bullshit.

I agree with you that it wasn't a soulless predatory minds. The democrats wanted to fix redlining in the banking industry. So they made it easier to get a mortgage. Thousands of years of banking practice thrown out because of liberal belief that the government can and should fix everything.

Oh and I'm not filling my head with paranoid bullshit. I live in California and see the bullshit everyday. I see Europe beginning to fail for the same reasons that Venezuela failed, misguided socialist BS and I see portions of the U.S. Ruling class wanting to chase Europe into that failure. Britain got out, I'd like the U.S. To get out as well, including the People's Republic of California.

On the other hand, you don't know me well enough, and aren't smart enough to understand what I fill my head with, so take your own advise please.

< Message edited by Nnanji -- 11/16/2016 9:49:44 AM >

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 10:36:28 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

The economy crash has been argued here for ever. It was caused by banking rule changes made by Carter and Clinton.


Oh, this is so precious.

Let's look at the 'banking rule changes' in question, here:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, aka the Financial Services Modernization Act. Funny, I'm not seeing either Carter's or Clinton's name here. Did you grow up in a different country, is the spelling that vastly different where you grew up?

In any event, such 'modernization' as dialed back regulation to pre-1929 crash days. No surprise, it worked to same effect in both instances. They would have done just as well in naming it the "Let's Have Another Crash! Act."

But we were talking about Carter and Clinton, right? Not as any consequence to the matter of financial melt-down, but in ever beloved politico perspective.

Republican Rep. Thomas Ewing supposedly introduced the Commodity Futures Act into the House, but that was Phil Gramm's pig all the way. The Reagan mantra of "getting the government off our backs" held to form here, and structured finance was set free to seek and destroy home equity.

Yes, Clinton signed off on that, we all know, but he didn't instigate or write the measures, Republicans did.

And most assuredly, the media knew they could count on mom-obsessed fuckwits like yourself to buy into the unmitigated idiocy of all occurring in result from the aforementioned deregulation as being the fault of some president 30 years ago, his magical time bomb set for 2007, from his office in 1977.

As it turns out, trying to go all H. G. Wells or Austin Powers time travel in contorted purpose to deflect blame from the congressional criminals responsible for this won't save your day.


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 11:25:25 AM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
I agree with you that it wasn't a soulless predatory minds. The democrats wanted to fix redlining in the banking industry. So they made it easier to get a mortgage. Thousands of years of banking practice thrown out because of liberal belief that the government can and should fix everything.


If that's what you think then why did you say they intentionally crashed the economy before going on about how their buddies made so much money? Why are you talking about 'Solendyne' (do you actually mean Solyndra???) as if it were just a cash grab instead of an earnest attempt to create jobs and YES I ADMIT IT TO PROFIT within the post-Inconvenient Truth next-big-thing alternative energy movement? Do you not realize that making money and starting businesses involves taking risks that sometimes do not pay off?

You were clearly hinting at a conspiracy to use the market crash to transfer wealth to left-wing causes... and if this wasn't your point, then why were you bringing up all of this shit about profiting from the crash? I was asking if the Dems intentionally caused the crash, you said they did, and started giving what sounded like reasons that they probably did it. But apparently after clearly saying it was done intentionally in post 113, you actually didn't mean them to be taken as such and you were just ranting about things unrelated to the topic at hand because you're angry. Then you actually seemed to say that it was a topic that had been beaten to death and you didn't want to talk about it with a lowly idiot like me, but of course that didn't stop you from ranting about it. I guess I was just supposed to listen to your stupid bullshit and accept that you know better than I do simply because you say so.

I admit, it was confusing because you seem to think that they also caused it through incompetence, but how am I supposed to know just how wonky your mind is? After bumping into people like you all over the internet, such absurd contradictions no longer shock or surprise me, especially since your entire point is 'Democrats are stupid and evil'.

Oh, and I guess every Republican president since Carter has tried and failed to reverse the horrible mistakes of Carter and Clinton, since the GOP leaders are apparently not responsible for them.

Seriously... do you just not know the meaning of the word 'intentionally'? Do you think everyone who doesn't realize that you don't actually mean what you say is stupid? Or were you about to pull out a conspiracy theory before you started backtracking, hoping that no one would notice? Your posts were confusing because you can't communicate properly and your ideas are childike, but of course you're too caught up in the Dunning-Kruger effect to know this, so you attempt to compensate with crude insults while calling yourself intelligent-- ridiculous.

And redlining is about race or ethnicity, not financial standing. There is a difference between denying someone a loan because they are black or Jewish and denying someone a loan because they will never be able to pay it back. How could someone as brilliant as you claim to be possibly fail to understand such a simple distinction?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Oh and I'm not filling my head with paranoid bullshit. I live in California and see the bullshit everyday. I see Europe beginning to fail for the same reasons that Venezuela failed, misguided socialist BS and I see portions of the U.S. Ruling class wanting to chase Europe into that failure. Britain got out, I'd like the U.S. To get out as well, including the People's Republic of California.

On the other hand, you don't know me well enough, and aren't smart enough to understand what I fill my head with, so take your own advise please.


Yes, you hate and fear leftists... I got that... but please spare me the details of your life, if only because they're so boring and predictable. You don't even realize that attacking the worst examples of 'socialism' instead of the best only make you seem less like someone who is interested in understanding politics and more like a dogmatic idiot. Seriously, it's like me saying 'Oh hey look at Bangladesh, I guess capitalism is a total failure and causes only pain and suffering for everyone'.

You've convinced me that you don't seem to have anything coherent to say and it doesn't even seem like you're capable of being honest with yourself, so I'm sure that not knowing you is probably a good thing.

< Message edited by heavyblinker -- 11/16/2016 11:42:20 AM >

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 3:32:47 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

The economy crash has been argued here for ever. It was caused by banking rule changes made by Carter and Clinton.


Oh, this is so precious.

Let's look at the 'banking rule changes' in question, here:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, aka the Financial Services Modernization Act. Funny, I'm not seeing either Carter's or Clinton's name here. Did you grow up in a different country, is the spelling that vastly different where you grew up?

In any event, such 'modernization' as dialed back regulation to pre-1929 crash days. No surprise, it worked to same effect in both instances. They would have done just as well in naming it the "Let's Have Another Crash! Act."

But we were talking about Carter and Clinton, right? Not as any consequence to the matter of financial melt-down, but in ever beloved politico perspective.

Republican Rep. Thomas Ewing supposedly introduced the Commodity Futures Act into the House, but that was Phil Gramm's pig all the way. The Reagan mantra of "getting the government off our backs" held to form here, and structured finance was set free to seek and destroy home equity.

Yes, Clinton signed off on that, we all know, but he didn't instigate or write the measures, Republicans did.

And most assuredly, the media knew they could count on mom-obsessed fuckwits like yourself to buy into the unmitigated idiocy of all occurring in result from the aforementioned deregulation as being the fault of some president 30 years ago, his magical time bomb set for 2007, from his office in 1977.

As it turns out, trying to go all H. G. Wells or Austin Powers time travel in contorted purpose to deflect blame from the congressional criminals responsible for this won't save your day.



Eweird, you're an idiot punk. Don't try and sound either tough or smart.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 3:34:27 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
I agree with you that it wasn't a soulless predatory minds. The democrats wanted to fix redlining in the banking industry. So they made it easier to get a mortgage. Thousands of years of banking practice thrown out because of liberal belief that the government can and should fix everything.


If that's what you think then why did you say they intentionally crashed the economy before going on about how their buddies made so much money? Why are you talking about 'Solendyne' (do you actually mean Solyndra???) as if it were just a cash grab instead of an earnest attempt to create jobs and YES I ADMIT IT TO PROFIT within the post-Inconvenient Truth next-big-thing alternative energy movement? Do you not realize that making money and starting businesses involves taking risks that sometimes do not pay off?

You were clearly hinting at a conspiracy to use the market crash to transfer wealth to left-wing causes... and if this wasn't your point, then why were you bringing up all of this shit about profiting from the crash? I was asking if the Dems intentionally caused the crash, you said they did, and started giving what sounded like reasons that they probably did it. But apparently after clearly saying it was done intentionally in post 113, you actually didn't mean them to be taken as such and you were just ranting about things unrelated to the topic at hand because you're angry. Then you actually seemed to say that it was a topic that had been beaten to death and you didn't want to talk about it with a lowly idiot like me, but of course that didn't stop you from ranting about it. I guess I was just supposed to listen to your stupid bullshit and accept that you know better than I do simply because you say so.

I admit, it was confusing because you seem to think that they also caused it through incompetence, but how am I supposed to know just how wonky your mind is? After bumping into people like you all over the internet, such absurd contradictions no longer shock or surprise me, especially since your entire point is 'Democrats are stupid and evil'.

Oh, and I guess every Republican president since Carter has tried and failed to reverse the horrible mistakes of Carter and Clinton, since the GOP leaders are apparently not responsible for them.

Seriously... do you just not know the meaning of the word 'intentionally'? Do you think everyone who doesn't realize that you don't actually mean what you say is stupid? Or were you about to pull out a conspiracy theory before you started backtracking, hoping that no one would notice? Your posts were confusing because you can't communicate properly and your ideas are childike, but of course you're too caught up in the Dunning-Kruger effect to know this, so you attempt to compensate with crude insults while calling yourself intelligent-- ridiculous.

And redlining is about race or ethnicity, not financial standing. There is a difference between denying someone a loan because they are black or Jewish and denying someone a loan because they will never be able to pay it back. How could someone as brilliant as you claim to be possibly fail to understand such a simple distinction?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Oh and I'm not filling my head with paranoid bullshit. I live in California and see the bullshit everyday. I see Europe beginning to fail for the same reasons that Venezuela failed, misguided socialist BS and I see portions of the U.S. Ruling class wanting to chase Europe into that failure. Britain got out, I'd like the U.S. To get out as well, including the People's Republic of California.

On the other hand, you don't know me well enough, and aren't smart enough to understand what I fill my head with, so take your own advise please.


Yes, you hate and fear leftists... I got that... but please spare me the details of your life, if only because they're so boring and predictable. You don't even realize that attacking the worst examples of 'socialism' instead of the best only make you seem less like someone who is interested in understanding politics and more like a dogmatic idiot. Seriously, it's like me saying 'Oh hey look at Bangladesh, I guess capitalism is a total failure and causes only pain and suffering for everyone'.

You've convinced me that you don't seem to have anything coherent to say and it doesn't even seem like you're capable of being honest with yourself, so I'm sure that not knowing you is probably a good thing.

There's your basic idiot bait and switch. I hate, I fear, I hint without saying. You are so full of shit.

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 4:31:37 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
FR

http://www.newtoncitizen.com/opinion/darrell-huckaby-take-a-seat-history-class-is-in-session/article_abf9816a-1604-57e3-ae6b-d4041e18e438.html


(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 4:41:55 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

FR

http://www.newtoncitizen.com/opinion/darrell-huckaby-take-a-seat-history-class-is-in-session/article_abf9816a-1604-57e3-ae6b-d4041e18e438.html




That probably needs to get passed around to most of the country. The only reason i understand it is because when i was teaching 6th grade i did a unit on it.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 5:06:29 PM   
Wayward5oul


Posts: 3314
Joined: 11/9/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
I agree with you that it wasn't a soulless predatory minds. The democrats wanted to fix redlining in the banking industry. So they made it easier to get a mortgage. Thousands of years of banking practice thrown out because of liberal belief that the government can and should fix everything.


If that's what you think then why did you say they intentionally crashed the economy before going on about how their buddies made so much money? Why are you talking about 'Solendyne' (do you actually mean Solyndra???) as if it were just a cash grab instead of an earnest attempt to create jobs and YES I ADMIT IT TO PROFIT within the post-Inconvenient Truth next-big-thing alternative energy movement? Do you not realize that making money and starting businesses involves taking risks that sometimes do not pay off?

You were clearly hinting at a conspiracy to use the market crash to transfer wealth to left-wing causes... and if this wasn't your point, then why were you bringing up all of this shit about profiting from the crash? I was asking if the Dems intentionally caused the crash, you said they did, and started giving what sounded like reasons that they probably did it. But apparently after clearly saying it was done intentionally in post 113, you actually didn't mean them to be taken as such and you were just ranting about things unrelated to the topic at hand because you're angry. Then you actually seemed to say that it was a topic that had been beaten to death and you didn't want to talk about it with a lowly idiot like me, but of course that didn't stop you from ranting about it. I guess I was just supposed to listen to your stupid bullshit and accept that you know better than I do simply because you say so.

I admit, it was confusing because you seem to think that they also caused it through incompetence, but how am I supposed to know just how wonky your mind is? After bumping into people like you all over the internet, such absurd contradictions no longer shock or surprise me, especially since your entire point is 'Democrats are stupid and evil'.

Oh, and I guess every Republican president since Carter has tried and failed to reverse the horrible mistakes of Carter and Clinton, since the GOP leaders are apparently not responsible for them.

Seriously... do you just not know the meaning of the word 'intentionally'? Do you think everyone who doesn't realize that you don't actually mean what you say is stupid? Or were you about to pull out a conspiracy theory before you started backtracking, hoping that no one would notice? Your posts were confusing because you can't communicate properly and your ideas are childike, but of course you're too caught up in the Dunning-Kruger effect to know this, so you attempt to compensate with crude insults while calling yourself intelligent-- ridiculous.

And redlining is about race or ethnicity, not financial standing. There is a difference between denying someone a loan because they are black or Jewish and denying someone a loan because they will never be able to pay it back. How could someone as brilliant as you claim to be possibly fail to understand such a simple distinction?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Oh and I'm not filling my head with paranoid bullshit. I live in California and see the bullshit everyday. I see Europe beginning to fail for the same reasons that Venezuela failed, misguided socialist BS and I see portions of the U.S. Ruling class wanting to chase Europe into that failure. Britain got out, I'd like the U.S. To get out as well, including the People's Republic of California.

On the other hand, you don't know me well enough, and aren't smart enough to understand what I fill my head with, so take your own advise please.


Yes, you hate and fear leftists... I got that... but please spare me the details of your life, if only because they're so boring and predictable. You don't even realize that attacking the worst examples of 'socialism' instead of the best only make you seem less like someone who is interested in understanding politics and more like a dogmatic idiot. Seriously, it's like me saying 'Oh hey look at Bangladesh, I guess capitalism is a total failure and causes only pain and suffering for everyone'.

You've convinced me that you don't seem to have anything coherent to say and it doesn't even seem like you're capable of being honest with yourself, so I'm sure that not knowing you is probably a good thing.

Dude, feel better?

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 5:48:23 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Eweird, you're an idiot punk. Don't try and sound either tough or smart.


You hate smart because no way in hell could you ever understand smart.

Understood.

But what about all this 'tough' thing?

Is obsession over mothers of internet posters the new valuation of 'tough guy,' like you are?

Ooooh, let me back away here, oooh ...





< Message edited by Edwird -- 11/16/2016 5:49:11 PM >

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 6:22:54 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
LMAO

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/16/2016 9:20:57 PM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Dude, feel better?


No.

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/17/2016 8:13:56 PM   
LadyDemura


Posts: 141
Joined: 2/12/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

What really caused it was when the government forced the banks to give minorities loans that they could never pay off. But of course the people filling the market need are the evil ones not the people who gave out loans or the people who pushed them to do so. About the only person who tried to stop this was John McCain and he was branded as a racist for doing so.


They went with this, and it worked, for awhile, because housing prices continued to go up. It didn't matter if they could never pay off if the overall value of the property continued to go up. That they built too many units was why the prices started to go down, but even then they still didn't stop building, thinking it was just a momentary downturn.

I'm not actually denying what you said was a factor, but it wasn't what caused the crash, just part of what caused the bubble. If the builders and banks hadn't gotten too greedy and overbuilt, it wouldn't have caused the great recession like it did, though many of those mortgages would have still ended in foreclosure. The crisis was that with the falling prices from overbuilt supply, foreclosing on those properties cost the banks money, rather than gaining them money, or just getting their money back, like they would have had the prices kept going up or stayed flat.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/17/2016 9:26:25 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

What really caused it was when the government forced the banks to give minorities loans that they could never pay off. But of course the people filling the market need are the evil ones not the people who gave out loans or the people who pushed them to do so. About the only person who tried to stop this was John McCain and he was branded as a racist for doing so.


They went with this, and it worked, for awhile, because housing prices continued to go up. It didn't matter if they could never pay off if the overall value of the property continued to go up. That they built too many units was why the prices started to go down, but even then they still didn't stop building, thinking it was just a momentary downturn.

I'm not actually denying what you said was a factor, but it wasn't what caused the crash, just part of what caused the bubble. If the builders and banks hadn't gotten too greedy and overbuilt, it wouldn't have caused the great recession like it did, though many of those mortgages would have still ended in foreclosure. The crisis was that with the falling prices from overbuilt supply, foreclosing on those properties cost the banks money, rather than gaining them money, or just getting their money back, like they would have had the prices kept going up or stayed flat.

None of which would have happened if Congress (and both parties had a hand in this) hadn't decided that it was discriminatory to refuse a loan to minorities just because they couldn't afford it.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to LadyDemura)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/17/2016 11:04:30 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

Willful ignorance at its coarsest.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/18/2016 12:20:02 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Only 13 % of the population is AA.
THere must have been an AWFUL lot of Black families buying a lot of houses, To cause the cluster fuck that hit in 2007-8. But ok lets go with that bullshit as true, if you are going to blame poor black people. Why havent the repubs done something about it in the past 6 years?


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/18/2016 12:59:21 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
The Democrats haven't been this pissed off since the Republicans took their slaves away.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/18/2016 1:45:30 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

The Democrats haven't been this pissed off since the Republicans took their slaves away.

How many mayors have already stated that they are going to defy the law and maintain sanctuary status?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/18/2016 1:51:09 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

The Democrats haven't been this pissed off since the Republicans took their slaves away.

How many mayors have already stated that they are going to defy the law and maintain sanctuary status?

They are not defying the law. Trump will defy the law and cut them off? that aint happening.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/18/2016 2:00:26 AM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
FR
I really can't remember what happened on the year Obama won over McCain. Were there Protest from the Right? I don't remember it being this bitter after the election. Was it?

I mean to be fair, there were alot of people who doubt he was an American. The Birther issue. And alot of people who believed he was Muslim Terrorist Plant. So they could have technically stage an angry nationwide protest too. But I don't remember if they did.

But I guess America can take in comfort that Islamic countries do this too. President Joko Widodo of Indonesia was accused of being a Chinese Christian as a smear to prevent him from being elected. That was the smear campaign against him from the opposition. And he had to show his birth certificate to proof that he is a Malay and a Muslim to reassure the country. So if you go to a Muslim country, they care that you MUST be Muslim, otherwise, they ain't gonna vote for you.

And well, in the US..., same thing, I think if they think you are a Muslim, it would be harder to win.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: These aren't "protests" - 11/18/2016 2:03:03 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Obama vs Mcain yes there were plenty of protests and for the past eight years too.
In public, in private and in congress.

the information is out there, if you are willing to open your mind.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: These aren't "protests" Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109