Obamacare: Worste Thing Since Slavery

FreedomWorks said:
Liberals try to oppress black people and then point shame on them if they become successful. Like Obama telling people "you didn't build that" It's the entire socialist mentality. Thanks so much cheezey for spamming that all over ,all the time, over and over again. The copy and paste becomes more and more compelling every time you post it :roll:

[video=youtube;YKjPI6no5ng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Click to expand...

Jesus god. Okay, liberalism and socialism are two completely different ideologies. That's why they have different names. In most other countries, the liberals and the conservatives are draped in the same party since they are two different factions of the same ideology. Socialism is simply the idea that workers should have control over what they produce, otherwise known as public control over the means of production.

If you are going to use big words, make sure you know what they mean.
 
Red1966 said:
Yeah, and blacks were whites. I suppose you'll tell us those were "Republcan" Democrats that fought the Civil Rights Act, too.
Click to expand...

civil rights was fought mostly along geographical lines, not party lines.

the geographical regions that fought for civil rights are currently solid blue.
 
Dr Kynes said:
just like the MYTH that members of "La Raza" invented anything of value (previously demolished), or that colombians can do anything besides pick coffee, process cocaine or blow up their own judges.

these ridiculous myths are a deliberate self deception, a grand delusion which helps to ease the pain of being so worthless, so wrong and so full of shit.
Click to expand...

Totally not racist.
 
El Tiberon said:
It certainly wasn't Strom Thurmond, the former elitist democrat turned republican when the civil rights era began. He was arguably the first major figure to switch sides and this began the avalanche of the others following him. All the other supporters of slavery followed him.
Click to expand...
George Wallace was a Democrat, so was Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd ...............NARC
 
UncleBuck said:
civil rights was fought mostly along geographical lines, not party lines.

the geographical regions that fought for civil rights are currently solid blue.
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts get in your way of your idiocy. LOL


On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays.
The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[SUP][16][/SUP]
Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

  • The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
  • Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
  • The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
  • The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party

The original House version:[SUP][17][/SUP]

  • Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
  • Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[SUP][18][/SUP]

  • Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[SUP][17][/SUP]

  • Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
 
Dr Kynes said:
nope. these are factual statement s based on reality.
Click to expand...

so colombians can only pick coffee, process cocaine, and blow up judges?

no, that's not a factual statement based in reality.

i would call it butthurt rather than racist in this specific instance, but that doesn't mean you aren't a racist still.
 
beenthere said:
Don't let the facts get in your way of your idiocy. LOL

Click to expand...

do you add LOL after everything that's not remotely funny?

both parties supported civil rights by about 70% or more.

the startling divide between the votes was by region, just like i said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region

[h=4]By party and region[edit][/h]Note:*"Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the*Confederate States of America*in the*American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87 * (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10 * (0–100%)

  • Northern Democrats: 145–9 * (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24 * (85–15%)
The Senate version:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 * (5–95%) (only*Ralph Yarborough*of*Texas*voted in favor)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 * (0–100%) (John Tower*of*Texas)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 * (98–2%) (only*Robert Byrd*of*West Virginia*voted against)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 * (84–16%)


so much for anything you post ever having one iota of value.

you are a yapping halfwit and should remain in hiding after that embarrassing unskewed polls debacle of yours.
 
Red1966 said:
No, it was after the little SNITCH El Timid got his ass handed to him and called the FBI to report someone was making fun of him and growing pot. Narcs aren't welcome here.
Click to expand...

Nothing that you say can cover up the fact that you alluded to killing members of congress in your country.
 
So Robert Byrd the democrat and former KKK member changed parties later on and became republican????

You're still butt hurt about me posting those pics showing your plants drying in the same room as your cat liter box, aren't you.
What a f...ing tool! LOL
 
GOD HERE said:
Jesus god. Okay, liberalism and socialism are two completely different ideologies. That's why they have different names. In most other countries, the liberals and the conservatives are draped in the same party since they are two different factions of the same ideology. Socialism is simply the idea that workers should have control over what they produce, otherwise known as public control over the means of production.

If you are going to use big words, make sure you know what they mean.
Click to expand...

No, socialism rapes you if you're too good looking because everyone should have a piece of that ass.
 
ChesusRice said:
Carson, in his book, tells how his grades improved tremendously when a government program provided him with free eyeglasses because he could barely see. Not only that, in “Gifted Hands” we read this nugget: “By the time I reached ninth grade, mother had made such strides that she received nothing but food stamps. She couldn’t have provided for us and kept up the house without that subsidy.”
He writes elsewhere, “As I’ve said, we received food stamps and couldn’t have made it without them.” He writes elsewhere, “As I’ve said, we received food stamps and couldn’t have made it without them.” Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/26/186905/commentary-dr-ben-carsons- baffling.html#storylink=cpy ​
Click to expand...
Are you seriously claiming that food stamps make people as successful as Carson? Why aren't we overrun with brilliant brain surgeons then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top