- Posts: 3444
- Thank you received: 11
pineinthegrass wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote:
No you claimed that VP Biden was talking about putting the African - Americans in chains, which clearly in the context of his remarks he was not, nor was he speaking exclusively to African Americans. According to media reports, the majority of the audience were not African Americans. You, Fred, Printsmith, etc. are the ones who are making these remarks racist, when clearly they were not. You should be ashamed if you are not racist. The back was in reference to the days before the Obama banking regulations were enacted, that Romney would take us back to that time when we were at the mercy of the financial institutions that were running rampant.pineinthegrass wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote:
Only a racist would think that. His reference was to Wall Street, that Romney would overturn the banking regulation brought about by President Obama which would enable Wall Street (a metaphor for the financial industry) to once again shackle the average american.pineinthegrass wrote:
FredHayek wrote:
lol Conservatives are eagerly waiting for the bloodbath that will be the VP debate.archer wrote: Joe was certainly a better choice for Obama than Ryan is for Romney.
Biden couldn't even put away political lightweight Palin in their debate.
And was Biden pandering to the African-Americans in the crowd (not that pandering is anything unusual in politics)? I get metaphors, but he said "they gonna put ya'll back in chains". He didn't need the word "back" in there. Without it, I could see a general metaphor. But when he says you'll be back in chains it comes across as being a much more specific reference.
All you got is playing the race card?
I explained my opinion. Again, the word "back" was unnecessary if all Biden ment to do was use a metaphor. But instead you claim anyone who dares disagree with you is a racist. Typical of you.
I never called the remarks racist. You used the word, not me. I said he was pandering. And I never said he was speaking exclusively to African Americans. Don't attribute what you think others may of said to me. You are way out of line here.
You don't know what Biden really ment and neither do I. If it was just a metaphor, why did he use the word "chains" when a hundred other words would of worked just as well? I only expressed my opinion, and I should be free to do that without some jerk calling me a racist.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Something the Dog Said wrote:
pineinthegrass wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote:
No you claimed that VP Biden was talking about putting the African - Americans in chains, which clearly in the context of his remarks he was not, nor was he speaking exclusively to African Americans. According to media reports, the majority of the audience were not African Americans. You, Fred, Printsmith, etc. are the ones who are making these remarks racist, when clearly they were not. You should be ashamed if you are not racist. The back was in reference to the days before the Obama banking regulations were enacted, that Romney would take us back to that time when we were at the mercy of the financial institutions that were running rampant.pineinthegrass wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote:
Only a racist would think that. His reference was to Wall Street, that Romney would overturn the banking regulation brought about by President Obama which would enable Wall Street (a metaphor for the financial industry) to once again shackle the average american.pineinthegrass wrote:
FredHayek wrote:
lol Conservatives are eagerly waiting for the bloodbath that will be the VP debate.archer wrote: Joe was certainly a better choice for Obama than Ryan is for Romney.
Biden couldn't even put away political lightweight Palin in their debate.
And was Biden pandering to the African-Americans in the crowd (not that pandering is anything unusual in politics)? I get metaphors, but he said "they gonna put ya'll back in chains". He didn't need the word "back" in there. Without it, I could see a general metaphor. But when he says you'll be back in chains it comes across as being a much more specific reference.
All you got is playing the race card?
I explained my opinion. Again, the word "back" was unnecessary if all Biden ment to do was use a metaphor. But instead you claim anyone who dares disagree with you is a racist. Typical of you.
I never called the remarks racist. You used the word, not me. I said he was pandering. And I never said he was speaking exclusively to African Americans. Don't attribute what you think others may of said to me. You are way out of line here.
You don't know what Biden really ment and neither do I. If it was just a metaphor, why did he use the word "chains" when a hundred other words would of worked just as well? I only expressed my opinion, and I should be free to do that without some jerk calling me a racist.
And I should be free to express my opinion that your interpretation was clearly erroneous and racist.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Martin Ent Inc wrote: [irrelevant cartoon]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Topic Author
Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: would y'all be so mean to one another if you actually knew each other? I mean how do you think we are EVER going to get ANYTHING done any more if the people fall into the trap of fighting fighting fighting - I blame 24/7 cable hyping things up so much so that all of their talking heads can fill the time. We should be smarter than them and not allow their silly headlines and fabricated outrage control us. seriously.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
on that note wrote: Isn't slavery when you don't get to decide what you do with your time and output of your labor. You can be 100% slave, but you can also be 55%.
Aren't tax rates a measure of how much of a slave you are.
This is part of why Romney gets so much crap for paying 15% when others may pay 20% or more. We feel like he is less of a slave than us and in order to be and feel equal, we want others to suffer as much as we do, to be equally a slave.
Now if Romney paid 1000x times more than you but the same %, you feel equal, because he gave up just as much of his life as you did to slavery.
Slaves don't get bonuses for being extra productive, Romney was a very productive slave, paid in massive amounts, but did so by only giving a smaller % (slaved less hours)....so people still feel this is unequal even if he paid 1000x more. Slavery and it's feeling are still very alive, we imbedded them in our income tax system. When you work all day, still don't have what you need, but are forced to pay in for others to have an even better lifestyle than you have...well that is a slavery in my opinion. Very poor people who can't afford food, but pay their rent foot the bill for others in the town to send their kids to school, even if those others have a boat in the driveway. That is OUR system. It is called regressive taxation, it becomes slavery in the end, by %'s (you love these remember).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.