View Full Version : This Is What The Far Left Now Deems Socially Acceptable. It Is Bad.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/27/samuel_l_jackson_ad_for_obama_wake_the_f_up-comments.html#dsq-form-area
I dont like using kids for things like this !!
typical of Piece of crap losers though and jackson is a piece of crap that needs a wet wipe to clean up !!!
funny though radical muslims use their kids just like dems to fight their fights !
kinda like the lefty that brings their kids to protests then blames the right when the kid gets hurt !
then again anyone stupid enough to listen to actors for political advice is just as pathetic which sadly seems to be quite a few folks
I dont like using kids for things like this!!
You got that right Honu. I wear no foil accessories but am now about 99% certain that we are the one's who better wake the f*ck up. You know this fool Jackson won't be held accountable by the media for this unacceptable trash.
Paying too much attention to the news these days can really be unpleasant.
Even worse than child profanity, or the idea that celebrities are valuable sources of political information is the absolutely, completely absurd idea that a ****ing child has any grasp of anything related to politics and government.
But that is another cherished leftists piece of dogma that "if we'd only listen to the children..."
Sadly almost half of this country is so ****ing stupid they will accept that video in it's entirety as some form of enlightenment.
You know this fool Jackson won't be held accountable by the media for this unacceptable trash.
To do so would be the acts of a racist or uncle tom.
Mauser KAR98K
09-27-12, 18:26
After watching Jackson, and this from yesterday, I am in total agreement with Michael Savage: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/09/26/cnn-and-msnbc-pundit-arrested-vandalizing-anti-muslim-ad-ny-subway-syste
Freedom of expression doesn't mean you can do illegal things like vandalism to private property. Notice her face and expression when she is arrested that what is going on isn't fair because she is in "the right."
After watching Jackson, and this from yesterday, I am in total agreement with Michael Savage: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/09/26/cnn-and-msnbc-pundit-arrested-vandalizing-anti-muslim-ad-ny-subway-syste
Freedom of expression doesn't mean you can do illegal things like vandalism to private property. Notice her face and expression when she is arrested that what is going on isn't fair because she is in "the right."
I wish I could say I was surprised.
Only educated, land owning, tax paying people were allowed to vote when this country was founded.
Why do you think that was????
Only educated, land owning, tax paying people were allowed to vote when this country was founded.
Why do you think that was????
A few years ago I would have essentily labeled you a bigot. Now days I don't know anymore. There is a genuine and founded sense of frustration that despite the lessons of history this empire is about to crumble, largely from weakness within.
People on welfare:
1. Should not be allowed to vote.
2. Should have to take a drug test every month.
3. Should have to wait in line for their allotment of food stamps or money at a government office, instead of having it deposited into an automated account.
4. Should have their name in a public record with how much assistance they are on, that is searchable by anyone on the internet.
It should be uncomfortable to be on welfare.
A few years ago I would have essentily labeled you a bigot. Now days I don't know anymore. There is a genuine and founded sense of frustration that despite the lessons of history this empire is about to crumble, largely from weakness within.
The founding fathers knew that if you gave everyone the right to vote, the freeloaders will be voting themselves money from the public treasury. It has nothing to do with racism or sexism.
In their time, only people that contributed to the operation of this country were allowed to have a say in how it was operated.
Unfortunately, they did not write this rule down in the constitution and this is the fundamental root cause of all of our problems now.
Moose-Knuckle
09-27-12, 19:57
Not surprising in the least considering . . .
Jackson was a militant member of the Black Power movement. And kind of a terrorist.
When we say "militant," we're not just talking about beret wearing and outstretched fist posing. We're talking about the definition of "militant" that involves weapons and violence. Like many others in the 1960s, Jackson started out on the Jedi/MLK side of the civil rights movement. But after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Jackson switched to the dark side -- the side that decided peaceful integration with whitey was off the table.
In 1969, Samuel Jackson and his angry buddies held members of the Morehouse College Board of Trustees hostage in exchange for changes in the college curriculum and school governance. Apparently, kidnapping people to get what you want is kind of effective, because Morehouse actually did initiate some of the captors' ideas.
Jackson and crew were, of course, expelled. But that was OK, because Jackson used his time away from college to go to Black Panther University with Honorary Prime Minister Stokely Carmichael as his professor. And that was when the FBI started investigating Samuel L. Jackson and family, which thoroughly spooked Mr. Jackson, and motivated him to get back on the straight and narrow.
For those of you who have never heard of this before, one of his victims was Martin Luther King Sr. (the father of MLK).
The founding fathers knew that if you gave everyone the right to vote, the freeloaders will be voting themselves money from the public treasury. It has nothing to do with racism or sexism.
In their time, only people that contributed to the operation of this country were allowed to have a say in how it was operated.
Unfortunately, they did not write this rule down in the constitution and this is the fundamental root cause of all of our problems now.
At this point I don't have a single word of rebuttal to offer. Perhaps this is karma coming around to harm us for our forefather's desire to maintain slave labor while dividing families like they were cattle.
Straight Shooter
09-27-12, 20:27
Scottryan is dead ****ing on right.
Go look at the vid of the worthless welfare queen hollering "Obama gonna give us a free phone" and "Romney sucks".
Hell ****ing no these mooching ass leeches shouldnt be allowed to vote, or reproduce either, damned maggots.:mad:
Moose-Knuckle
09-27-12, 20:32
Hell ****ing no these mooching ass leeches shouldnt be allowed to vote, or reproduce either, damned maggots.:mad:
Easy their Shooter, maggots at the least serve a purpose as they dispose of putrid and fetid flesh.
People on welfare:
1. Should not be allowed to vote.
2. Should have to take a drug test every month.
3. Should have to wait in line for their allotment of food stamps or money at a government office, instead of having it deposited into an automated account.
4. Should have their name in a public record with how much assistance they are on, that is searchable by anyone on the internet.
It should be uncomfortable to be on welfare.
They should be given 1000 calories per day of dry rice or wheat. They can take it home and boil it.
If they want vegetable, they can eat grass in the park.
If they want meat, they can catch rats and pigeons.
People on welfare:
1. Should not be allowed to vote.
2. Should have to take a drug test every month.
3. Should have to wait in line for their allotment of food stamps or money at a government office, instead of having it deposited into an automated account.
4. Should have their name in a public record with how much assistance they are on, that is searchable by anyone on the internet.
It should be uncomfortable to be on welfare.
I get called some horrible names for saying those same things.
People on welfare:
1. Should not be allowed to vote.
2. Should have to take a drug test every month.
3. Should have to wait in line for their allotment of food stamps or money at a government office, instead of having it deposited into an automated account.
4. Should have their name in a public record with how much assistance they are on, that is searchable by anyone on the internet.
It should be uncomfortable to be on welfare.
I disagree. None of this should happen because there should be no federally subsidized welfare. There is no provision in the Constitution for any federal welfare outside of support for the military. That means no federal housing assistance, no funding for food stamps, and no federal contributions to Medicaid.
On the other hand, states are free to enact whatever welfare their respective constitutions allow. However, federal funds cannot be used to bailout poorly conceived state budgets.
This is exactly right Scottryan,
I had recently arrived at this conclusion myself after thinking about the "Romney 47%" comment.
Fundamentally, the person/entity that pays for something gets to call the shots.
I recently floated this concept to my liberal buddy who's a die hard democrat and very into politics.
I backed it up with the analogy of a hypothetical family in which the kids ( who don't contribute financially ) get to make the financial decisions.
The end result is easy to predict - a bankrupt family who spent all their money on a bunch of frivolous junk.
He could not formulate a rebuttal.
People on welfare:
1. Should not be allowed to vote.
...
It should be uncomfortable to be on welfare.
The founding fathers knew that if you gave everyone the right to vote, the freeloaders will be voting themselves money from the public treasury. It has nothing to do with racism or sexism.
In their time, only people that contributed to the operation of this country were allowed to have a say in how it was operated.
Unfortunately, they did not write this rule down in the constitution and this is the fundamental root cause of all of our problems now.
Belmont31R
09-27-12, 21:57
I disagree. None of this should happen because there should be no federally subsidized welfare. There is no provision in the Constitution for any federal welfare outside of support for the military. That means no federal housing assistance, no funding for food stamps, and no federal contributions to Medicaid.
On the other hand, states are free to enact whatever welfare their respective constitutions allow. However, federal funds cannot be used to bailout poorly conceived state budgets.
Was going to say basically the same. Instead of making welfare a bunch of hoops to jump through it shouldn't exist at all. There's nothing in the Constitution which authorizes forced income redistribution.
People voting themselves money out of the treasury is nothing new.
How ironic, their catch phrase was "Wake the F up"...yet this vid was funded by the Jewish Council for Education and Research!
Unbelievable.
GeorgiaBoy
09-27-12, 22:22
Even worse than child profanity, or the idea that celebrities are valuable sources of political information is the absolutely, completely absurd idea that a ****ing child has any grasp of anything related to politics and government.
I would have to disagree.
I don't know what your age definition of a "****ing child" is, but there are a LOT of "children" out there who both are interested and UNDERSTAND politics, even at young ages like the girl in the video. Are they experts at it? Do they know who their congressman is or who the speaker of the house is? No, probably not, but neither do 3/4's of adult voters.
There is no reason a child's views on political issues should be ignored because they "don't understand". In the age of the internet and the age of information, children are learning at a earlier and earlier age what their political ideologies will be and form political opinions earlier and earlier.
yeah cause their parents told them what to think on politics would be the only reason !!!!
maybe a very few kids actually are but so so so so so rare again unless the parents tell them what to think and do about politics and even if they show a interest it is only to make the parents happy and they do not understand it !
I would have to disagree.
I don't know what your age definition of a "****ing child" is, but there are a LOT of "children" out there who both are interested and UNDERSTAND politics, even at young ages like the girl in the video. Are they experts at it? Do they know who their congressman is or who the speaker of the house is? No, probably not, but neither do 3/4's of adult voters.
There is no reason a child's views on political issues should be ignored because they "don't understand". In the age of the internet and the age of information, children are learning at a earlier and earlier age what their political ideologies will be and form political opinions earlier and earlier.
I disagree. None of this should happen because there should be no federally subsidized welfare. There is no provision in the Constitution for any federal welfare outside of support for the military. That means no federal housing assistance, no funding for food stamps, and no federal contributions to Medicaid.
Yep, LBJ ****ed us on that one.
GeorgiaBoy
09-27-12, 23:11
yeah cause their parents told them what to think on politics would be the only reason !!!!
Parental influence is one of the greatest factors on what your political ideology will be, nothing is changing that.
If you grow up in a liberal household, chances are you'll grow up to be a liberal. Same of conservative households.
Of course, there are always flukes in the system.
There is no reason a child's views on political issues should be ignored because they "don't understand".
That is PRECISELY why they should be ignored. They know nothing of reality and usually less about the real world impact of politics.
They don't have real jobs, they don't have to provide for themselves, they don't know what it means to earn something, they don't know what it means to go "without" because some of your income was given away to others, they don't pay taxes, they aren't responsible for other people who depend upon them or any of the other things that make the difference between a grown up and a child.
yeah cause their parents told them what to think on politics would be the only reason !!!!
\!
There is a black kid in my son's 6th grade class who said he supports Obama for reelection. My son asked him what Obama had done that he likes. The black kid said Obama is paying down the national debt.
Check it out...
(F-word advisory)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8&list=LLqjpWePZf0PyoivWkSf90bA
Originally Posted by GeorgiaBoy
There is no reason a child's views on political issues should be ignored because they "don't understand".
That is PRECISELY why they should be ignored. They know nothing of reality and usually less about the real world impact of politics.
They don't have real jobs, they don't have to provide for themselves, they don't know what it means to earn something, they don't know what it means to go "without" because some of your income was given away to others, they don't pay taxes, they aren't responsible for other people who depend upon them or any of the other things that make the difference between a grown up and a child.
Checkmate....Children have no place in politics, period! The left, which is morally bankrupt, has long pined for the inclusion of children into the political arena, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the likes of "General Butt Naked" are a small collection of such champions....
How ironic, their catch phrase was "Wake the F up"...yet this vid was funded by the Jewish Council for Education and Research!
Unbelievable.
Do you happen to know how JCER receives their funding Ironman? I've been searching around but haven't found much info on them.
Thanks
Looking at the video of that woman spray painting a paid advertisement because she "believes" she has the right to do so because she wished to express herself and / or believes she has a moral right to deface it because she deems it "racist" is exactly why we will always be playing catch up to the radical left.
I don't care how offensive the "paid advertisement" would happen to be, if there was a similar subway bill board that...
Promoted homosexuality and had a photo of two men kissing.
Promoted socialism / communism agenda the characterized private property as "greed."
Promoted racism in the form of preferential treatment of minorities or negative views of "white people."
Promoted redistribution of wealth to the poor.
Promoted anti gun views.
Promoted religious hatred.
No matter how vile or offensive the message might be, because we respect private property, paid advertisements and free speech you won't find us doing the same. We may decide to call and complain, we may choose to boycott and sponsors but none of us are going to destroy property.
We are law abiding, we aren't going to lose our rights by engaging in vandalism to attack a message we may find offensive and in short...we aren't going to FORCE our views on anyone else or suggest they are not entitled to their views. And perhaps more important than anything else, we actually know what the Constitution says and what our rights are and what we have the right to do and don't have the right to do.
But at the end of the day, they will claim they are the victims.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.