Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Elections over...here come the new regulations


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,480 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:23 AM

Yes...that's not a racist statement at all Floppin.

And get it right...I called you a racist piece of poo.


How does insinuating that you are okay with legislation that specifically targets dark skinned muslim boogie men terrorists make me the racist, exactly?

#17 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,138 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:24 AM

How does insinuating that you are okay with legislation that specifically targets dark skinned muslim boogie men terrorists make me the racist, exactly?


All palestinians are not dark skinned...

#18 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,480 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:25 AM

All palestinians are not dark skinned...


Ohh so it's just Palestinians that you're racist against. Gotcha. Glad you admitted to, and cleared that up.

#19 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,138 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:30 AM

Ohh so it's just Palestinians that you're racist against. Gotcha. Glad you admitted to, and cleared that up.


I think the qualifying "terrorist" portion was enough...but nice attempt to deflect your racist idiocy.

#20 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,480 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:34 AM

You're still not explaining how me pointing out that you're okay with legalized racial profiling makes me the racist.

#21 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,138 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:35 AM

No clue what the heck you're talking about now.

#22 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,480 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:38 AM

Good tactic. Just play dumb.

#23 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,138 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:47 AM

Where have I promoted racial profiling based on these new regulations being run through?

Don't pull a CWG.

#24 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,480 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:10 AM

Where have I promoted racial profiling based on these new regulations being run through?

Don't pull a CWG.


I wasn't talking about these regulations, genius. God you suck at reading comprehension today. I was pointing out the inconsistency of you regarding privacy regulation.

If the restriction of privacy is supposedly geared towards stopping terrorist (see: muslims, or palestinians as you pointed out) then you are all for - Nothing to hide, nothing to fear GO TEAM USA.

But when the danger to privacy might actually affect you and is apparently geared towards EVERYONE, well now it's a problem!

Here's a hint, the restrictions on privacy, no matter the bullshit reason they state, really effects everyone. Privacy is privacy and it's restriction can be abused no matter the cause of it's inception.

But when it's sold as a way to go after a group of people, never mind the fact that it does nothing but promote racial profiling as has been documented THOUSANDS of times. Well that's just all puppies and sunshine for G5.

#25 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,757 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:33 PM

Its always good to know that "pulling a CWG" means "pointing out how terrible your arguments are".

#26 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:58 PM

Because it was in the meeting.



Political expediency. (Just a tip, questions don't end with a period.)

Now then why did Republicans make "insuring Obama was a one term president" their top priority instead of creating jobs?


Why didn't Obama make creating real jobs a top priority? (See, there's a question mark.)

#27 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:09 PM

A+ thread everybody.

#28 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,138 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:43 PM

If the restriction of privacy is supposedly geared towards stopping terrorist (see: muslims, or palestinians as you pointed out) then you are all for - Nothing to hide, nothing to fear GO TEAM USA.


Be specific.

But when the danger to privacy might actually affect you and is apparently geared towards EVERYONE, well now it's a problem!

Here's a hint, the restrictions on privacy, no matter the bullshit reason they state, really effects everyone. Privacy is privacy and it's restriction can be abused no matter the cause of it's inception.


I'm not saying anyone has a right to privacy on government roads. That's already been determined.

But when it's sold as a way to go after a group of people, never mind the fact that it does nothing but promote racial profiling as has been documented THOUSANDS of times. Well that's just all puppies and sunshine for G5.


Again...made up nonsense.

#29 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:12 PM

Why didn't Obama make creating real jobs a top priority? (See, there's a question mark.)


He did. That's why job losses slowed, then reversed, & we are slowly gaining more jobs. The recovery would likely be more rapid if not for the Obama admin making poor investments with some of the stimulus money & the Republicans being so concerned with representing the "butt hurt constituency" & making Obama a one term president.

Now then, why were Republicans more concerned with making Obama a one term president than creating jobs?


(See? I answered your question instead of trying to deflect or running away.)

#30 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

He did. That's why job losses slowed, then reversed, & we are slowly gaining more jobs. The recovery would likely be more rapid if not for the Obama admin making poor investments with some of the stimulus money & the Republicans being so concerned with representing the "butt hurt constituency" & making Obama a one term president.

Now then, why were Republicans more concerned with making Obama a one term president than creating jobs?


(See? I answered your question instead of trying to deflect or running away.)


I don't think they were ... maybe just as concerned?

I hope you're not accusing me of trying to deflect or run away.

I believe that while the unemployment rate finally has come in under 8%, we still have more and more people dropping out of those being counted because they've given up looking for work.

I think Obama made a lot of promises about fixing the economy and fixing it fast, and that hasn't happened. Not that I believed it could be fixed fast ... but it's been much, much slower than promised, and many people are still struggling.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.