Obama was for gay marriage, then against it, now for it

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

View Post

Yesterday, 11:48 PM

Remove user from ignore list IB Hankering
This message is hidden because I B Hankering is on your ignore list.

OK, see if this will sink in. I.B. The above is what I see when you post your diatribes and meaningless comments.

First, you are righteously on my ignore list so I have no idea nor do I care what crap you have posted. It simply ranks somewhere below fuck you and I don't give a shit.

Second, the post was directed at COF, who is dumb but not yet vegetative like you are.

You look like the moron you are when you lie, Little Blind Boy. If you don't give a shit, why the post? Fuck you, Little Blind Boy.

[Iaintliein]

Once the polling shows that this works against him, he'll "clarify" his position once again.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=132636

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Once the polling shows that this works against him, he'll "clarify" his position once again.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=132636

To late, he did the right thing....not politically for him but the right thing.


Discrimination is not right. Those that argue it is, history shows are always on the wrong side of the ledger. Discrimination is not a Conservative position. I might add it it not a Liberal position. It is one thing both sides agree on. Bigots on the other hand believe in it and do anything they can to justify their belief.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Just hypothetically, let's assume Obama gets bad feedback from his latest position on gay marriage. Let's assume for the sake of argument, he changes back to being against gay marriage before the election. Would that be enough for you to acknowledge that's he totally full of shit? Or how about he reverses himself twice or three times or, etc. At what point do you cease to defend him? Is there any point at which you stop carrying the water for this clown?

Why not just admit that Obama's actions are irrelevant to you? Just tell us that you are going to support him no matter what he says or does.

That's not going to happen.

And I don't feel the need to defend him. 90% of the bullshit you idiots post up about Obama acting like it is the gospel truth is either an outright lie or is based on ignorance, bigotry and/or racism. Kayla is a perfect example with her posts about Obama being a communist, a marxist, a Black Panther, a terrorist, a muslim, blah blah blah. It's all talking point bullshit you zombies get from your talk radio shows and Fox News that is designed to demonize Obama without regard for the truth. He's none of those things and there is not one shred of evidence to support the argument that he is. But, you all believe it or at least purport to believe it....it's part of that retarded electorate problem I referred to in the other thread.

I happen to agree with the Democrats ideologically and I always have....you repukes are selfish, hypocritical, greedy, bigoted haters. You lack empathy for other human beings and you promote a political ideology that pits Americans v. Americans.....it's destructive, divisive, hateful and nonproductive. No offense, but you're all pitiful human beings.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by timpage

That's not going to happen.

And I don't feel the need to defend him. 90% of the bullshit you idiots post up about Obama acting like it is the gospel truth is either an outright lie or is based on ignorance, bigotry and/or racism. Kayla is a perfect example with her posts about Obama being a communist, a marxist, a Black Panther, a terrorist, a muslim, blah blah blah. It's all talking point bullshit you zombies get from your talk radio shows and Fox News that is designed to demonize Obama without regard for the truth. He's none of those things and there is not one shred of evidence to support the argument that he is. But, you all believe it or at least purport to believe it....it's part of that retarded electorate problem I referred to in the other thread.

I happen to agree with the Democrats ideologically and I always have....you repukes are selfish, hypocritical, greedy, bigoted haters. You lack empathy for other human beings and you promote a political ideology that pits Americans v. Americans.....it's destructive, divisive, hateful and nonproductive. No offense, but you're all pitiful human beings.

It’s a shame that your, and other Dim’s, “humanitarianism” always has to be measured in other people's dollars -- why not your own? And you are full of BS when you claim Dims are less divisive politically. You Dims are pathetic little creatures who live with your heads in your utopian sand; where you remain wholly oblivious to the real world that exists around you.

[CuteOldGuy]

Interesting, Timmy. You really have no reasoned response, yet you level personal attacks at those of us who understand Marxism and see it being played out like never before from the White House. We call it what it is, we recognize when President Obama is playing an emotional card that he really didn't want to play just yet, and you call us pitiful.

Your blind allegiance to a Marxist politician is what is truly pitiful. It would less pitiful if you could explain your reasoning, but you can't. Simple blind allegiance is all it is.

President Obama has been the most destructive, divisive, hateful and non-productive president in history. Yet you can't see that, because you simply don't want to, or are too ignorant. Either way, you're the pitiful one, my friend. I feel sorry for you.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It’s a shame that your, and other Dim’s, “humanitarianism” always has to be measured in other peoples dollars -- why not your own? And you are full of BS when you claim Dims are less divisive politically. You Dims are pathetic little creatures who live with your heads in your utopian sand; where you remain wholly oblivious to the real world that exists around you.

Conservatives give a much higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals. This is not due to income; it's true for poor and middle class conservatives as well as the rich.

I'm attaching a link to an article which addresses the question of conservative charitable contributions compared to liberal charitable contributions. This article also mentions that conservatives donate blood at a significantly higher rate than liberals.


From the article in Realclearpolitics.com:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.


Liberals believe that it is the job of the government to take care of the poor; it's not their job. Liberals feel like they are good people simply because they vote Democrat; it doesn't require any personal sacrifice.

The hypocrisy on the left is breath taking.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

[CuteOldGuy]

Don't you remember awhile back when TTH explained the liberal failure to donate to charity? He stated that liberals didn't want to interfere with the good work government was doing on behalf of the poor. So liberals keeping their money and voting for social programs is true charity. Not the false kind where people actually give of themselves to help another.

How selfish to donate your own time and money voluntarily, instead of taking from others who earned it and filtering it through a bureaucracy to people who meet certain benchmarks. You uncaring bastards! Get out of government's way, uh, for the children.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't you remember awhile back when TTH explained the liberal failure to donate to charity? He stated that liberals didn't want to interfere with the good work government was doing on behalf of the poor. So liberals keeping their money and voting for social programs is true charity. Not the false kind where people actually give of themselves to help another.

How selfish to donate your own time and money voluntarily, instead of taking from others who earned it and filtering it through a bureaucracy to people who meet certain benchmarks. You uncaring bastards! Get out of government's way, uh, for the children.

Liberals prefer to fund the social welfare state, that wastes most of the money intended for the poor on administrative costs, rather than contribute to private charities have a dramatically lower overhead and provide much more real help to the poor.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Liberals prefer to fund the social welfare state, that wastes most of the money intended for the poor on administrative costs, rather than contribute to private charities have a dramatically lower overhead and provide much more real help to the poor.

Robert L. Woodson, Breaking the Poverty Cycle: Private Sector Alternatives to the Welfare State, (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner, The End of Welfare, (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Conservatives give a much higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals. This is not due to income; it's true for poor and middle class conservatives as well as the rich.

I'm attaching a link to an article which addresses the question of conservative charitable contributions compared to liberal charitable contributions. This article also mentions that conservatives donate blood at a significantly higher rate than liberals.


From the article in Realclearpolitics.com:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.


Liberals believe that it is the job of the government to take care of the poor; it's not their job. Liberals feel like they are good people simply because they vote Democrat; it doesn't require any personal sacrifice.

The hypocrisy on the left is breath taking.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

There should be no tax deductions for charity. If you want to give to a charity, fine but do not expect to pay less in taxes and have others make up for it. Truly give your own money and not just divert your tax dollars.

See how much people really give when it is their own money!

[CuteOldGuy]

Liberals don't like deductions?

[CuteOldGuy]

I passed Dearhunter on the frequent poster list. Marshall Fuckup just had an orgasm.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Liberals don't like deductions?

I'm a fiscal Conservative/realist and a social Liberal. I do not like things that distort the true market. I am not for medicine for all but if it was a choice between our current healthcare system or Obamacare, I choose Obamacare. Give me a better choice. The GOP was in power from 2000-2006 and did nothing but start wars.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by WTF

There should be no tax deductions for charity. If you want to give to a charity, fine but do not expect to pay less in taxes and have others make up for it. Truly give your own money and not just divert your tax dollars.

See how much people really give when it is their own money!

Liberals get tax deductions when they give to charity, just like the conservatives, and yet they don't give as much as conservatives. My point remains; conservatives are more generous than liberals. They donate more money, more blood and more time than liberals.

Liberals love to characterize conservatives as Scrooges and Grinches; if anything, it's the reverse. There's an old saying, money talks and bullshit walks. Liberals love to talk about helping the poor but when it comes time to get out the check book they don't donate.

Liberals are hypocrites.