T1B

I suppose it depends on how they define Nazi. If you wanted to work, you pretty much had to join the National Socialist German Worker's party. 7% hardcore kool aid drinkers? I think that's probably far too low. It's a fair point, though.

The Nazis certainly began as a small group of thugs. The history of their rise is something we should recall. We are seeing that played out in some respect with the rise of what can be called Islamofascism.

Has Schilling bankrupted any businesses lately? Grifted any state governments?

88 wrote:This is a tried and true Democrat party tactic:

Are you ignorant or trolling?

There is no such thing as a Democrat party. It is called the Democratic Party.

88 wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Has Schilling bankrupted any businesses lately? Grifted any state governments?

I don't know. Was he in the green energy business and cozy with Obama?

Nice white flag.

88 wrote: Maybe his analogy is insensitive.

It's a comparison and it's stupid. X% of almost any group are assholes or worse. It proves nothing and is close to meaningless.

Or maybe you're just a fucking idiot.

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote: Maybe his analogy is insensitive.

It's a comparison and it stupid. X% of almost any group are assholes or worse.

You are in T1B's X%.

mvscal wrote:Or maybe you're just a fucking idiot.

Go ahead and pull the black cock out of your ass and enlighten us.

Why aren't they called the Democratics ? Maybe it's because they are as "democratic" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Could be when an avowed Socialist is running for their party's nomination.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Or maybe you're just a fucking idiot.

...enlighten us.

Us? You mean you.

That a relatively small cadre of fanatical ideologues can hijack a country and/or a religion and take it over the cliff like the Nazis did with Germany is hardly a controversial statement. It's happened before and it's happening again right in front of your dick slapped face.

It's so uncontroversial and obvious as to be meaningless.

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:This is a tried and true Democrat party tactic:

There is no such thing as a Democrat party. It is called the Democratic Party.

One has to understand that republicans have trouble with words containing more than two syllables. Why do you think that they usually refer to democrats as libtards?

Pot kettle much.

Moving Sale wrote:It's so uncontroversial and obvious as to be meaningless.

No, it's not.

We're about two or three goose steps away from the prog tards fully realizing their decades delayed Nazi dreams.

You seriously need to stop swallowing your party line Sale.

This isn't one of your black cock fantasies, this is happening now.

My party is the American Independent Party.
You know "guns God and family"

Okay , that's fine, I happen to be an independent as well, so why is this so "uncontroversial and meaningless"?

mvscal wrote:It's happened before and it's happening again right in front of your dick slapped face.

Yeah...but not by who you think is behind it.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Okay , that's fine, I happen to be an independent as well, so why is this so "uncontroversial and meaningless"?

I'm not an independent I'm an American Independent.
It's meaningless because it can be said about almost any group.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:This is a tried and true Democrat party tactic:

There is no such thing as a Democrat party. It is called the Democratic Party.

One has to understand that republicans have trouble with words containing more than two syllables. Why do you think that they usually refer to democrats as libtards?

If that was the case.....wouldn't they have a different name?

Moving Sale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Okay , that's fine, I happen to be an independent as well, so why is this so "uncontroversial and meaningless"?

I'm not an independent I'm an American Independent.
It's meaningless because it can be said about almost any group.

Not really. However, if that's the line you wish to follow, good luck to you.

Um like, wakey wake and all that. :?

Yea that's really convincing
So I guess you can name a few groups without bad apples.

Moving Sale wrote:Yea that's really convincing
So I guess you can name a few groups without bad apples.

These particular "bad apples" are in de facto control of large portions of Libya, Syria and Iraq and are rampaging largely unchecked. That doesn't happen without a great deal of indifference to and active enabling from the "good apples" in that group.

The fuse is lit.

Of course the bad apple only exist because they are going uncheck. Again, name a few groups this isn't true of.

Moving Sale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Okay , that's fine, I happen to be an independent as well, so why is this so "uncontroversial and meaningless"?

I'm not an independent I'm an American Independent.
It's meaningless because it can be said about almost any group.

Read your own words again Sale. "Almost any group."

By your own admission, you have just acknowledged not ALL groups have bad apples.

But politics being the particularly rotten apple that it is, has more than it's share of these types.

As was mentioned in another thread, you are broad stroking with a huge brush.

Care to restate your opinion now?