White Christians over 55 - DEAD!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:56 am

Can you just imagine what would happen if a politician was carrying on and said, "The future does not belong to young black secularists?"

A shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Career over.

The media always gives this chickenshit racism a pass when it comes from the left, yet continually makes references to the tea party being racist lol - even though there has hardly ever been even a mere peep out of any tea party leader about embracing racism of any kind.

Howierd Dean = INCREDIBLE bigot @sshole.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:36 pm

You realize Dean IS a white Christian?

Please tell me you knew?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:45 pm

Oh, is he?

Pardon me - I'll correct it.

Dean is a self-loathing bigot @sshole.

Fairly common package among the liberal crowd, to be honest.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:51 pm

poptart wrote:Oh, is he?

Yes he is. And he is correct. The demographics of the 21st century do NOT work in favor of the tea Party in any way, shape or form. Enjoy it now Tea Party honks. This is your high water mark.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:23 pm

No surprise that you don't want to touch the issue of what would happen if a high profile conservative voice singled out a given RACE the way this incredibly moronic fuck does.
Or what would happen if a conservative voice made accusations that democrats are using 'intolerance and hate' as a platform - as he FALSELY accuses the tea party of doing.

The little shithead spews racism, while calling his opponents intolerant and hateful.

LMAO!

Classic self-ass kicking there, Howie.

And *crickets* ---> goes the media.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:52 pm

poptart wrote:The little shithead spews racism, while calling his opponents intolerant and hateful.

Would you be calling it racism if someone said that from the other side of the isle? No you would not. You would try to rationalize the comment and villify the media for screaming "racism", such as you are here.

Classic self-ass kicking there, Howie.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:02 pm

R-Jack wrote:
poptart wrote:The little shithead spews racism, while calling his opponents intolerant and hateful.
Would you be calling it racism if someone said that from the other side of the isle? No you would not. You would try to rationalize the comment and villify the media for screaming "racism", such as you are here.

Classic self-ass kicking there, Howie.

i suspect he would. but, he ain't talking about the other side. he's talking about a bomb throwing libtard who is given a pass for spouting racism, so long as it's against white males, since everyone knows it's impossible to be racist against this group.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:27 pm

smackaholic wrote:i suspect he would. but, he ain't talking about the other side. he's talking about a bomb throwing libtard who is given a pass for spouting racism, so long as it's against white males, since everyone knows it's impossible to be racist against this group.

I know you're not that stupid. Right?

Howard Dean was simply making an observation based on the changing demographics of this country. He was not claiming that white Christians are inferior in ability or intellect, he was saying they will be diminished in NUMBERS. That is not a racist statement you idiotic pole sucking moron.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:13 pm

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:16 pm

Howard Dean is a fukking moron.

He goes on and on about the tea party being a modern day KKK. Can he point out any particular stances they take?

Can he site one fukking racist stand they take?

No. Just the same tired old innuendo.

He talks about being free from having others tell you what to do. But, he is an avowed "progressive". And telling others what to do through gubmint is exactly what he wants.

Just go away, you bitter irrelevant tard.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:26 pm

smackaholic wrote:Howard Dean is a fukking moron.

He goes on and on about the tea party being a modern day KKK. Can he point out any particular stances they take?

Can he site one fukking racist stand they take?

I could give a fuck if they are racist or not but...

They didnt have a problem with big gov't until a half-half president took hold in Jan of 2009 then on Feb of 2009 they were protesting with some fake ass Libertarian stance

He talks about being free from having others tell you what to do. But, he is an avowed "progressive". And telling others what to do through gubmint is exactly what he wants.

It is exactly what both the Republicans and Dems want. Tea Party would be happy with McCain shoving his dick down their throats but Obama is bad. Go Red team! Blue team is bad!

Fuck the tea party, republicans, democrats and any dumb fuck who thinks any of the three are somehow good.

Trampis · Post by **Trampis** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:03 pm

Hmm, was really hopeing for a Jim Jones reset thread when i saw the title.

Trampis, non coolaid drinker

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:30 pm

I see so the fear and hate he spreads is somehow more productive and conducive to a stronger nation ?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:16 pm

poptart wrote:

Can you just imagine what would happen if a politician was carrying on and said, "The future does not belong to young black secularists?"

A shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Career over.

The media always gives this chickenshit racism a pass when it comes from the left, yet continually makes references to the tea party being racist lol - even though there has hardly ever been even a mere peep out of any tea party leader about embracing racism of any kind.

Howierd Dean = INCREDIBLE bigot @sshole.

And yet conservatives say that liberals have a victimhood cmplex?!?!

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:57 pm

Mr T wrote:They didnt have a problem with big gov't until a half-half president took hold in Jan of 2009 then on Feb of 2009 they were protesting with some fake ass Libertarian stance

How the fuck do you think Chimpy got 20% approval ratings, you stupid, cod slurping fuckwit.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:44 pm

I thought Howard Dean was dead. Didn't sombody have him in the death pool?

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:53 pm

You talking about Bush? Why did Bush get 20 percent approval ratings? How does that relate to these fucks?

January 20, 2009 - Obama becomes president
January 24, 2009 - First tea party protest

These fucks wouldnt give a shit if McCain wouldve won and they wont in 5 years when a majority goes "Well the last 8 years sucked lets vote for the other party. That will make a difference"

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:30 am

Mr T wrote:You talking about Bush? Why did Bush get 20 percent approval ratings? How does that relate to these fucks?

Evidently you aren't very bright so I'll slow it down so you can catch up. Bush got 20% approval ratings because fiscal conservatives deserted him due to his astronomical spending. These people no longer even identify themselves as Republicans that is how badly Chimpy screwed the pooch. They are conservatives. They have little interest in the progressive, interventionist foreign policy of the Bush/Obama regime. They have even less interest in the Bush/Obama "stimulus" packages that have been shoved up the taxpayers' ass sideways.

The TaxedEnoughAlready Party has jackfuckingshit to do with race. It's about government. Start dealing with the issues instead of hiding behind bullshit propaganda, you fucking pussy.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:04 am

Mr T wrote:January 20, 2009 - Obama becomes president
January 24, 2009 - First tea party protest

Wrong.

Fail.

The first modern tea party was organized by RON PAUL supporters in December of '07.

Ron Paul supporters were overwhelmingly disgusted with Bush and were overwhelmingly NOT getting behind John McCain.

Get a clue before you hit the keyboard, dipshit.

Just listen to what little Dean says there and apply it to blacks.

"We are all one nation. The future is ours. It does not belong to young blacks."

Chrissy Matthews and his ilk would still be going apoplectic about it 14 years from now.

But racism against the whites is just fine with mentally ill lefties and the mentally ill media in this country.

Get fucked.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:11 am

BSmack wrote:
smackaholic wrote:i suspect he would. but, he ain't talking about the other side. he's talking about a bomb throwing libtard who is given a pass for spouting racism, so long as it's against white males, since everyone knows it's impossible to be racist against this group.
I know you're not that stupid. Right?

Are you new here?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:22 am

R-Jack wrote:Would you be calling it racism if someone said that from the other side of the isle? No you would not. You would try to rationalize the comment and villify the media for screaming "racism", such as you are here.

The media (overwhelmingly) does not cry racism when whitey is getting bashed.

Are you stupid ---> or just a pinhead?

If I saw a white politician saying the things Dean said (directed against blacks), I would just think to myself, "Well, he'll never get my vote."

Why do you assume I would try to rationalize racist comments coming from either side?

Unreal.

The point is, lefties and the media (overwhelmingly) go ape shit at the slightest hint that a white person might be getting racial.

But when a lefty is banging on the white race - all is well.

Fuckin' ridiculous state of affairs.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:10 am

poptart wrote:If I saw a white politician saying the things Dean said (directed against blacks), I would just think to myself, "Well, he'll never get my vote."

So when Alan Keys says that the future does not belongs to 55 year old blacks, You're going to call him a racist for that? After all, that is a more apt example.

Why do you assume I would try to rationalize racist comments coming from either side?

I don't know. Probably because you are crying wolf just to suit your views. Sorry, I didn't realize only dog eaters were allowed to make assumptions in your threads.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:33 am

R-Jack wrote:So when Alan Keys says that the future does not belongs to 55 year old blacks, You're going to call him a racist for that?

Of course.

But the point of this thread is that the MEDIA would crucify Keyes if he uttered the take that the future does not belong to blacks.

If you are selling liberty, which is what I am looking for in a political leader, you don't group people into racial or religious categories the way Dean did.

Hilarious shit that he actually had the audacity to make reference to 'liberty' in that clip.

Dumbshit wouldn't know liberty if a group of skinheads came and jammed it up his ass.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:12 am

BSmack wrote:Dean IS a white Christian

He appears to be quite a strange one, then.

The last Words Christ spoke to believers was to go and make new disciples - make new Christians.

Yet here we have Howie taking delight in the concept of Christian numbers shrinking in his home country.

And in his tea party rant, he speaks of 'religious bigotry,' which is obviously making reference to Christians.
And we know what has his panties in a bunch.

1. Christians tend to hold to the time-tested concept that it takes a man and a woman to have a marriage.
2. Christians tend to hold to the concept that a woman ought not be allowed to snuff out the life of a growing baby in the womb... because she wants to.

There is ZERO support within the Bible for homo marriage, abortion, or disciples wishing for Christian numbers to decrease.

What 'Bible' do you imagine Howie reads?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:08 pm

poptart wrote:
BSmack wrote:Dean IS a white Christian
He appears to be quite a strange one, then.

The last Words Christ spoke to believers was to go and make new disciples - make new Christians.

Yet here we have Howie taking delight in the concept of Christian numbers shrinking in his home country.

And in his tea party rant, he speaks of 'religious bigotry,' which is obviously making reference to Christians.
And we know what has his panties in a bunch.

1. Christians tend to hold to the time-tested concept that it takes a man and a woman to have a marriage.
2. Christians tend to hold to the concept that a woman ought not be allowed to snuff out the life of a growing baby in the womb... because she wants to.

There is ZERO support within the Bible for homo marriage, abortion, or disciples wishing for Christian numbers to decrease.

What 'Bible' do you imagine Howie reads?

Where in the constitution does it say that laws shall be based on what the bible says?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:29 pm

poptart wrote:There is ZERO support within the Bible for homo marriage, abortion, or disciples wishing for Christian numbers to decrease.

There is also zero support in the Bible for cell phones, electricity and the Internet. Why don't you go Amish and leave this place?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:50 pm

BSmack wrote:Why don't you go Amish and leave this place?

That means, the rest of us would be...

...LEFT BEHIND!

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:05 am

Roach wrote:
poptart wrote:
BSmack wrote:Dean IS a white Christian
He appears to be quite a strange one, then.

The last Words Christ spoke to believers was to go and make new disciples - make new Christians.

Yet here we have Howie taking delight in the concept of Christian numbers shrinking in his home country.

And in his tea party rant, he speaks of 'religious bigotry,' which is obviously making reference to Christians.
And we know what has his panties in a bunch.

1. Christians tend to hold to the time-tested concept that it takes a man and a woman to have a marriage.
2. Christians tend to hold to the concept that a woman ought not be allowed to snuff out the life of a growing baby in the womb... because she wants to.

There is ZERO support within the Bible for homo marriage, abortion, or disciples wishing for Christian numbers to decrease.

What 'Bible' do you imagine Howie reads?

Which 'Bible' do you so absolutly believe?

There are about 30 on that page alone. Not to mention the versions of the 'bible' that have been modified, created, adapted, and revised in the last 1800 years or so? The St. James version popular now is full of wisdom no doubt, but it hardly seems to be THEONE 'bible.'

Each one of us can find our own truth within. Some call that Jesus and some call it the Holy Ghost and some call it the Universal. Then with a solid belief or knowledge we can go try to convince others that things like abortion are wrong. But please don't use the 'I'm right and you are wrong' approach, and still quote Jesus, or another avatar of the Truth. Yes there have been others. Mormons think Joseph Smith is the only true prophet and if we don't believe it we're fucked. Most of the western world thinks the same thing about Jesus. A very much larger portion of humanity hold others in the same reverence. Take off the blinders and remember tolerance and no judgement.

:D

That's a really nifty sentiment, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the ridiculous assertion that Howard Dean is any kind of Christian.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:10 am

poptart wrote:Howierd Dean = INCREDIBLE bigot @sshole.

Oh and, if there is no future for whites (Christian or otherwise), then what kind of future can there be for anybody else? Who else is going do the work to pay the taxes that support all of those spics and nig..gers and other assorted drains on society?

Got news for ya, ni.ggers. There ain't enough Asians to pay for your lazy, worthless asses either.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:33 am

BSmack wrote:There is also zero support in the Bible for cell phones, electricity and the Internet. Why don't you go Amish and leave this place?

The parade of stupidity in this thread marches on.

Diego wrote:Where in the constitution does it say that laws shall be based on what the bible says?

Where in the constitution does it say that laws can not align with what the Bible says?

[Snickers][/Snickers]

Don't confuse things, mvscal.
Tax payers getting behind a platform of fiscal responsibility are intolerant bigots.

The end.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:49 am

mvscal wrote:
Evidently you aren't very bright so I'll slow it down so you can catch up. Bush got 20% approval ratings because fiscal conservatives deserted him due to his astronomical spending. These people no longer even identify themselves as Republicans that is how badly Chimpy screwed the pooch. They are conservatives. They have little interest in the progressive, interventionist foreign policy of the Bush/Obama regime. They have even less interest in the Bush/Obama "stimulus" packages that have been shoved up the taxpayers' ass sideways.

I will slow it down for you. They voted in a poll that asked which national figure best represents your group? You know who they selected? Sarah Palin. Yes that would be a change the republicans could believe in. These fucks wouldnt give a fuck in McCain wouldve won. You know why? Because these fucks voted for him. You know why? Because they said and probably you said "He was the lesser of two evils" Fuck McCain, Obama, Bush, Biden, Palin and any other fuck the two main parties put up

The TaxedEnoughAlready Party has jackfuckingshit to do with race. It's about government. Start dealing with the issues instead of hiding behind bullshit propaganda, you fucking pussy.

My favorite:

But your right. These stupid fucks would be out there if Biden wouldve been president doing the same stupid shit.

Do you really think these dumbfucks didnt vote for McCain?

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:56 am

poptart wrote:
Mr T wrote:January 20, 2009 - Obama becomes president
January 24, 2009 - First tea party protest
Wrong.

Fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

The first modern tea party was organized by RON PAUL supporters in December of '07.

Ron Paul supporters were overwhelmingly disgusted with Bush and were overwhelmingly NOT getting behind John McCain.

If they were overwhelmingly not getting behind McCain, why did they vote for him? Seems if they were for Ron Paul they wouldve voted Libertarian

But racism against the whites is just fine with mentally ill lefties and the mentally ill media in this country.

Racism against whites? Jesus how hard is it to be a white person. You are starting to sound like a black person

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:08 am

Mr T wrote: Jesus how hard is it to be a white person.

You've obviously never been on a beach. We don't look very good in trunks, we tend to glow a little bit.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:26 am

Mr T wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

The tea party began with Ron Paul supporters in 2007.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/natio ... -its-2007/

It's a matter of FACT.

Wikipedia is full of shit.

McCain didn't get much support, 'tard.
And certainly not from fiscal conservatives - and DEFINITELY not from Ron Paul supporters.

He got just 45% of the popular vote in '08.
By comparison, Bush got 51% of the popular vote in '04 and 48% of the vote in '00.

Some conservatives likely voted for McCain in '08 on the 'lesser of two evils' basis - suspecting and fearing the catastrophic economic policies that Barry would pursue.
And there is no way McCain would have run up the deficit to such an extreme, and sought to neuter small business the way Barry has.
So a fiscal conservative actually could make a rational case that it would have been wise to vote for McCain over O bomb ya on that basis.

Mr T wrote:Racism against whites? Jesus how hard is it to be a white person.

You must be an idiot on the same level as Dean.

Put people into racial categories and pit them against each other.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:33 am

But hasn't The Tea Party separated itself into various factions? You put too much stock in the Ron Paul wing, most libertarians don't believe in history, or in sociology, or in any kind of subtlety. I doubt they understand economics.
They just grasp for a reductionist notion of 'liberty' and a fuzzy, ahistorical concept of 'government'.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:58 am

Mr T wrote:If they were overwhelmingly not getting behind McCain, why did they vote for him?

They didn't, you stupid fuck. They stayed home hence McLoon's defeat.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:06 am

Feebs wrote:But hasn't The Tea Party separated itself into various factions?

Yes, and do you have some point?

ALL 'parties' do this.

Both republican and democrat parties have factions.

What is pretty much universal in the 'tea party,' is the concept of basic fiscal sanity.

That's code for... 'hateful bigotry,' for those scoring at home.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:15 am

poptart wrote: Yes, and do you have some point?

It's Mr T's point I think, at least with Ron Paul people are attempting to engage their brains, with Palin and disenchanted republicans it seems empty phrases and rhetoric and no real commitment or understanding of libertarianism and that seems to be the people who make up the bulk of the movement =/= no real change.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:59 am

The 'Palin wing' is basically in line with Obama/Bush on foreign policy.

Interventionist.
Bombs away.
Torture 'em up.
Patriot Act.
Etc.

The 'Paul wing' opposes these things.

Both 'wings' seek fiscal sanity.

I've not heard Paul, Palin, or any other tea party 'leader' express a desire to pursue racism.
Nor have I heard them categorizing people based on race.

It's the Deans of the world who are in to that.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:32 am

:? so one is in line with fiscal sanity and favours interventionism, one is line with fiscal sanity and favours isolationism? So foreign policy is irrelevant to fiscal sanity?

I'd say there are some issues here. Attacking a demographic on the lines of 'Mr. Smith is tall and intelligent with a long coat, therefore tall people with long coats are intelligent' seems the least of your worries.