Raees wrote: I'm guessing kids. Obviously someone learning from their parents.
Agreed, leftist parents (usually, so grow-up, and learn) spawn, leftist brats or criminals.
Generalizing of course.
Something the conservatives say they hate....I get called on the carpet every time I generalize about righties. Let's see if they do the same to you for such a blatant generalization.
Raees wrote: I'm guessing kids. Obviously someone learning from their parents.
Agreed, leftist parents (usually, so grow-up, and learn) spawn, leftist brats or criminals.
Generalizing of course.
Something the conservatives say they hate....I get called on the carpet every time I generalize about righties. Let's see if they do the same to you for such a blatant generalization.
"generalizing of course"... Isn't that enough for you archer? If he's admitting that his comment is a generalization, what's the point of any conservative weighing in on his opinion? I think you need a nap.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Raees wrote: I'm guessing kids. Obviously someone learning from their parents.
Agreed, leftist parents (usually, so grow-up, and learn) spawn, leftist brats or criminals.
Generalizing of course.
Something the conservatives say they hate....I get called on the carpet every time I generalize about righties. Let's see if they do the same to you for such a blatant generalization.
"generalizing of course"... Isn't that enough for you archer? If he's admitting that his comment is a generalization, what's the point of any conservative weighing in on his opinion? I think you need a nap.
I think you need to realize that with conservatives here there is one set of rules for lefties, and a different set for your buddy righties....that's all I was trying to convey. If I had posted something like that about the right I would never hear the end of it here, no matter what kind of disclaimer I posted in an attempt to deflect criticism. And if you don't see that, then your blinders are firmly in place.
Raees wrote: I'm guessing kids. Obviously someone learning from their parents.
Agreed, leftist parents (usually, so grow-up, and learn) spawn, leftist brats or criminals.
Generalizing of course.
Something the conservatives say they hate....I get called on the carpet every time I generalize about righties. Let's see if they do the same to you for such a blatant generalization.
PrintSmith wrote: Obama is not the first, nor will he be the last, sitting president to be labeled as a Nazi by member of the loyal opposition. To pretend that this is something new is laughable on its face. You should not expect that this president should be treated differently simply because of the color of his skin Dog. Yes, the cries are coming from the right wing presently because the president is left wing. When Bush was the sitting president those same cries emanated from the left wing because the president was right wing. I harbor no illusions that when Romney wins the election the left wing will return to calling the sitting president a Nazi during his term in office.
The mural of Ronald Reagan in Tennessee was defaced with a Hitler mustache as recently as last year. It takes no effort to google images of Bush sporting a Hitler mustache. The level of your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The conservatives have denounced the actions of the bigot responsible, they simply have a different opinion as to which camp the bigot belongs than you do based upon their reading of what happened. It is only clearly and unquestionably the act of a local right wing bigot when evidence to support that allegation is unnecessary to a member who resides on the left wing.
We had a recent occurrence of a lesbian couple in Parker defacing their own property and claiming it was the action of a right wing bigot and an LGBT hate crime. Why is it so preposterous to envision that this is another such episode? Remember the last time you folks on the left claimed a right wing hater was breaking windows of Democratic locations? It ended up being some leftist who was mad at the president and the Democrats rather than right wing haters. Why then is it a preposterous notion to believe that the latest damaged window isn't also due to a disaffected leftist of one stripe or another?
The question I ask myself is who most benefits from an Obama outlet having reversed swastikas painted on the windows given the closeness of the contest? The answer to that question is an obvious one, isn't it? Obama stands on the threshold of defeat unless something happens to change the tide. Is this not one of the things which could help change that tide for him in Colorado? Might not this act influence the fence sitters upon whom the reelection depends if it can be pinned to Obama's enemies that he has encouraged his supporters to punish at the polls?
Since the Obama campaign did not publicize this incident, did not hold a press conference, did not issue a press release about, simply reported it to the authorities and let it go, in what way did the Obama campaign to gain all of these benefits that your are claiming? Nope, it is absolutely clear that it was a conservative hate monger who did this act.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Democracy4Sale wrote: They've got nothing else. They know their standard boilerplate bullsh*t about the Dems doing it to themselves is total crap. But it's entertaining.
You yourself know that that is a lie. When the Denver Dem Party window was broken during the 2008 DNC, turns out it was a lefty, not an "R".
When Rep. Giffords was shot, wasn't a Tea Party member like you predicted, but a troubled kid with little politics.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
