One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: USSupporter
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Mar 12, 2015 14:49:35   #
Liberals love to attack!

the accuse their opposition of being r****ts - when they play the r****t card all the time.

They accuse their opposition of being t*****rs - when they disagree with the way they want to do things - but they can criticize everyone's else views.

They claim their opposition is against women - yet even Hillary pays her female workers less than she pays her male workers. So does the current White House.

they are argue that those against a******n are against women - no they aren't they are in favor of a child that the liberals want to ignore. What about the child's right to live - the women's life is only being impacted by actions she took - but the poor child is the total victim.

They accuse those that are not in favor of amnesty for i******s as h**eful, no they support those that follow the law instead of thumbing their nose at the law. What about the millions who would like to immigrate this country legally but can't because we allow too many i******s to enter the country.

If you disagree with a liberal you are h**eful. Yet, when liberals disagree with others they are the ones that use h**eful speech to condemn their opposition.

The joke is the liberal politician doesn't care about those that he claims to care about - if he did he would actually help them. They just try to make people dependent on government. If they helped them they wouldn't need government. If they didn't need government they would v**e for liberals. But by giving them just enough to survive and saying the opposition will take what little you have away, they try to scare them into v****g for liberals.

If you promise to give someone a fish everyday that person becomes depend upon you. If you teach them to fish they are no longer dependent upon you. The liberals want to give away fishes - not their fish, but someone else's fish. The conservatives want to teach everyone to fish so they are in control of their own destiny. That doesn't mean conservatives turn their backs on the truly needed who can't help themselves. In fact conservatives donate more money to groups like that than the liberals.
Go to
Mar 12, 2015 09:55:48   #
It's amazing that people like Keyyn are so clueless. Obama violates the constitution on a regular basis but that is fine.

What the hell do you mean take back out country - you are your stupid liberal friends are letting the government take over the country for their benefit. Liberal politicians aren't interested in helping anyone but themselves. They forced Obamacare down our throats against a majority of the popular v**e - but they don't participate in it because they know its a s**m. It's all about control for them. It' government of the people, for the people - not government for the government.

Your h**e for the Teabaggers (terrible term and inappropriate - but I'm referring to your comment) are people that simple want the government out of our lives. The federal government has specific responsibilities - protect the country, but it doesn't do that when it allows people to enter illegally, but it wants to tell Americans what insurance they should buy.

Anyone that support Obama simply wants the government to responsible for taking care of them. They don't want to take responsibility for themselves. With the exception of certain small minorities - who clearly need help because of some disability - the rest of the people should be responsible for themselves. That doesn't mean the government doesn't give a helping hand in terrible times (disasters, or even unemployment - but it's not the government's job to support people for a lifetime. There are thousands of jobs that aren't getting filled because too many people are too lazy to do them. They want a cushy job that pays high dollars for doing nothing - anything less is unacceptable. Guess what, they don't exist except for some government jobs and most of those should be gotten rid of.
Go to
Mar 4, 2015 07:49:01   #
What hole are the Democrats going to hide when Iran gets a nuclear weapon and starts threatening people with it or worse - actually uses it against someone one?

The liberals wanted to crucify Bush over the 9/11 attacks - like how could he let that happen - when the scenario was on that virtually no thought would happen. Our rules of engagement were totally outdated - for example, if terrorist took over the plane - do what they want so as not to threaten the lives of the passengers. Well no one thought they would use the plane to commit suicide.

Now when many people are screaming about what Iran wants to do - they Dems want to ignore all the warnings and say those people are just war mongers. No those people are trying to be prudent. Once Iran gets the bomb- we will be in a totally new state of terror. And when they start threatening people or give the bomb to one of the terrorist groups they sponsor how will the Dems explain that one away?

The party of N. Chamberlain will be in deep trouble.
Go to
Mar 1, 2015 21:02:26   #
President Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes in 2014 if they were sent to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper.

According to the website Israel National News, the Bethlehem-based news agency Ma'an cites Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

Al-Jarida reports that the alleged threat from the White House forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel the planned attack.

This is great - he won't attack our enemies but will attack our friends. If he does anything like that he should be shot as a t*****r.
Go to
Feb 28, 2015 23:05:37   #
President Obama would do well to listen to the advice of an earlier U. S, President:

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."


For those that forget, Coolidge restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor's administration, and left office with considerable popularity. Something our current president isn't doing.
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 21:02:10   #
badbobby wrote:
david if you swallowed that I want to sell you some ocean side property in Arizona



CHEAP


Be careful - when the big one hits and California falls into the ocean Arizona might have some nice Ocean front property and it will be more valuable because it won't be California.

:)
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 20:23:40   #
DASHY wrote:
The question we should be pondering while standing barefoot in line at airports waiting to be patted down by folks in uniforms hired yesterday from the ranks of the unemployed, is this: When our government got the green light on 9/11 to declare a brand new "war on terror" (with our terrorized support and consent) and proceeded to make national security, not individual civil liberties a top priority, then made a series of illegal invasions on foreign countries which k**led thousands of people -- WAS IT WORTH IT?

Are all of the failed policies following 9/11 really advancing the vital interests of our nation? I think not.
The question we should be pondering while standing... (show quote)


So you think if we ignored what happened on 9/11 we would be better off? Would you really feel safe flying on airplanes if there was no check of the baggage?

What those that criticize our actions - seem to forget they attacked us. The excuse that we were in KSA is a joke - we went their to help free Kuwait - we didn't keep it, we gave back and we had the support of most of Arab countries. The only ones that complained we were there were the radical islamists - who forgot why we were their because it was convenient. They rather condemn us to get people to join their crusade where they they permission to k**l people for the fun of it - especially if they don't like them and of course, rape women for sport. Who signs up for that kind of crusade but brutal people-who only care about themselves.

The liberals also want to talk about the great uptopian countries that advocate for the worker - unfortunately most of them have been brutal to the worker. Stalin k**led millions, Khmer Rouge k**led 25% of the population, China. North Korea, and the list goes on. The only reason they hold on as long as they do is they suppress real news - and put out propaganda that if you think its bad here its worse of there. Millions of Russians and Chinese thought our streets were paved in gold. How we wish.

And the nut cases that will believe fairy tales as long as it supports what they want to believe are really not in touch with reality. Accept the fact - four planes crashed on 9/11 - two into the WTC and one into the Pentagon. I guess the phone calls from the plane in Penn were f**ed also when they called loved ones.

Stop blaming the US for defending itself. It the same BS that Israel gets. They receive rocket fire from Hamas, but if they fire back they are evil. The BS argument that they used excessive fire power is BS. If I'm receiving sniper fire and the only thing I have is an 8" howitzer I'm using it. And maybe I would even if I had small arms weapons. The message is if you want to mess with me - my guns are bigger than yours so kiss your ass good bye. No apologies from this side.
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 19:50:57   #
motive power wrote:
Pretrial is only a evidence reveal between the legal folks [ lawyers] etc. The Grand Jury decides if the evidence is sufficient to even have a trial. The crime that has been comitted determines the range of punishment, say from life to life with possibility of parole etc. Only some murders, rapes and such carry the death penality, most crimes don't.


I get that. I assume we are only discussing capital crimes. In most states they have to be pretty bad to qualify.
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 19:21:37   #
motive power wrote:
I truly think you are on to something here in a way. We called them Gooks, Charlie and VC and after a while you looked on them with no pity. But most jurys for some years now are Required to be a mix of the races. The 3 times I had jury duty the numbers were fairly balanced between all the races.


That may be what happens - but what we are considering is what their test trials were like.

And if everyone agrees the guy is guilty of the crime. I would think it would be easier to get three minority people to go along with the death penalty. It's easier to go along then stand up and fight for somebody that committed a terrible crime and you agree they committed the crime.
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 18:42:28   #
Ten the to one they didn't the research in reverse. In other words have African American take trials of viscous crimes that involved white and black perps and see who they would sentence to the death penalty.

Part of what we are dealing with is beyond r****m. During wars soldier come up with names for the enemy (Nips, Krauts, slant eyes) for subconscious reasons. The name dehumanize the enemy which makes it easier to k**l them. Most people are uncomfortable k*****g people - so it better to make them non human. The closer the person is to themselves in appearance the harder it to k**l them - so it is easier for b****s to sentence white to death, and w****s to sentence b****s to death. It's not really about race - just so they don't look me.


Glaucon wrote:
Jennifer L. Eberhardt, 49, an associate professor of psychology at Stanford University, studies the effect of unconscious ideas about race on the workings of the criminal justice system. She was one of 21 winners of 2014 MacArthur “genius” grants.
Interest in her work has grown after the deaths of black suspects at the hands of police officers in Missouri and New York. We spoke for two hours in New York in September and again by telephone on Jan. 1. Here is an condensed and edited version of our conversations.
WHEN YOUR MACARTHUR WAS ANNOUNCED, IT WAS SAID YOU HAD SHOWN HOW CRIMINAL SENTENCING WAS RELATED TO SKIN COLOR AND RACIAL STEREOTYPING. HOW DID YOU DO THAT?
The particular study they were referring to was on the death penalty. We gathered photographs of people convicted of capital crimes and who were eligible for a death sentence. We then cropped them and asked Stanford students to rate how stereotypically black the faces appeared to be.
We told our subjects to use any dimension they wanted with which to make that judgment: skin color, width of nose, thickness of lips. Interestingly, though we didn’t give them clear direction of what we meant by “stereotypically black,” there was a lot of agreement about what that was.
Now, the students had no idea where these pictures came from or that these were convicted felons. We wondered if their ratings of blackness could predict whether the person had received a life or a death sentence.
AND WERE THEY PREDICTIVE?
Oh, yes. People who were judged to be most black were, in reality, most likely to have drawn a death sentence. In fact, they were over twice as likely to get a death sentence.
YOU’VE ALSO DONE STUDIES ON HOW PEOPLE PERCEIVE RACE AND WEAPONRY. WHAT DID YOU DISCOVER?
There’s one where we exposed people subliminally to black and white faces. We did this by sitting subjects in front of computer screens and exposing them to pictures of faces at such a rapid rate that they couldn’t consciously detect what they’ve been exposed to.
Then we displayed a blurry object on the screen. Sometimes, the object was crime-relevant — a gun or a knife. At other times, it was crime-irrelevant — a stapler. In 41 frames, this blurry object moved into focus.
Our participants told us that when they’d been exposed to the black faces beforehand, they were able to identify the crime-relevant objects quicker. Exposure to the white faces led them to need more frames to say, “That’s a gun.”
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS?
Seeing a lot of black faces created a perceptual readiness to detect crime-related objects.
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU HAD STUDENTS PLAY COMPUTER GAMES THAT CENTERED ON SHOOTING BLACK PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE CARRYING GUNS?
This is an experiment that another social psychologist, Josh Correll at the University of Colorado-Boulder, has done. But we’ve done it, too.
You have a computer game simulation where a subject sees someone holding an object. If it’s a gun, they hit a button labeled "Shoot.” If it’s a harmless object, they hit another labeled "Don’t Shoot."
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
It turns out that if they are shown a black person with a gun, they’ll respond with "Shoot" faster than when flashed the image of a white person with a gun. People are more likely to mistakenly respond with "Shoot" to a black person with no gun than to a white person with no gun.
WHAT MOTIVATES YOU TO DO THIS KIND OF RESEARCH?
I grew up in an all-black neighborhood in Cleveland. One day, my parents announced we were moving. The new junior high school was mostly white. That really shook me. The neighborhoods weren’t that far apart, but everything was different.
And that raised questions for me, for the first time, about how people can live such different lives.
WERE PEOPLE NOT NICE TO YOU?
People were nice. But different! People always joke that all black people look alike. All of them looked alike to me, which was a real handicap because I wanted to have friends but I couldn’t tell who I’d met the day before. I wasn’t practiced at sorting those faces.
The funny thing is that today, one of the things I study is face recognition, and maybe because that’s a kind of a metaphor for race relations. Not being able to read another person’s face — it symbolizes a psychological distance that makes it difficult to understand the experiences of another group.
I think about this often in terms of tensions between the police and the community and the trouble they have in reading one another.
IN OFFICER DARREN WILSON’S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE FERGUSON, MO., GRAND JURY, HE DESCRIBED MICHAEL BROWN AS LOOKING “LIKE A DEMON.” IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MEAN?
I don’t want to speak directly on that particular case. I don’t know all the details, and maybe we’ll never know. However, we have done work in my lab on how African-Americans can be dehumanized in these types of encounters.
For instance, African-Americans have long been associated with the pejorative words “ape” and “gorilla.” So we have studies where we show clips of police officers using force on a suspect.
In the clip, you can’t tell the race of the person being beaten. Then we expose the research subjects to words associated with apes and gorillas. If the suspect turns out to be black, the use of force is justified by our research subjects more often than if our subjects hadn’t been exposed to those words.
We’re finding that the beliefs of the police aren’t generally that different from everyone else’s. A lot of the tests we’ve done, we give them to students, to ordinary citizens and to police officers. We’re finding the results are generally similar. The police are people like everyone else.
ALL THIS DATA YOU COLLECT — WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT?
One thing I do is work with police departments. We do workshops where we present these studies and show what implicit bias is, and how it’s different from old-fashioned r****m. I don’t think this alone can change behavior. But it can help people become aware of the unconscious ways race operates. If you combine that with other things, there is hope.
Jennifer L. Eberhardt, 49, an associate professor ... (show quote)
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 17:47:19   #
I suppose the live footage of the two planes crashing into the WTC were done by Hollywood and provided to the New York TV networks to run on 9/11.

If a plane didn't fly into the Pentagon were those that watched it happen just imagining it? Besides what happen to that flight and all the people on it?

As to bringing down the WTC with explosives - you have be naive. The intense fire destroyed the columns on the floor of the fire - the result was a 30 story building dropped 10 feet on to the next floor and you are surprised that floor failed. I think the live load of 30 story building dropping 10 feet was a little above the design criteria. Once that process started - it just kept failing all the way to the ground.


DavidB wrote:
‘Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III, head of all intelligence says:

Pentagon NOT hit by a plane
WTC 7 brought down by explosives
Media in America is controlled

A terrible pilot hits pentagon accounting office holding records of missing 3 trillion in oil for money scheme & missing 2.3 trillion in DOD expenses

Pentagon debris a single 3 foot engine Proven not related to 757

FBI took all recordings & refuses to show

The FCC had all records on criminals like Paulson, Geithner, Ruben, Summers & others engaging in that illegal activity. But all the records of those illegal trades were destroyed when WTC 7 was brought down by thermite on 9/11!

911 was a public snuff film used to shock the public and enact the end of the Bill of Rights & invasion of oil bearing countries, & make money for private companies like Halliburton, (stock from 10 to 50 a share)!

By destroying the WTC, they were able to cover up theft of gold bullion & destroy illegal financial t***saction records performed just prior to the attacks

Silverstein spends 140 million to make 7 billion almost over night; Silverstein said it was demolished by explosives, (pull it)

It reminds me of CIA man Byrd, the owner of TX School Book Depository, who turned a 2.5 million insider purchase into 26 million dollars thanks to JFK assassination!
‘Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubbleb... (show quote)
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 17:31:46   #
So we should ignore his actions - because commenting on them makes him look bad! Our comments don't make him look bad, he makes himself look bad.

Such as today when can't recognize the events in France as terrorist attack. When the cartoon by that magazine came out, he said:

“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Mohammed, and we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this.”

Yet, when North Korea threatened movie goers, he criticized the movie company for pulling the movie. He is blind to actions by the Muslims. Why is because he is probably one of them.
Go to
Jan 7, 2015 17:27:45   #
When the magazine that was attacked yesterday printed a cartoon about Mohammed the official statement from the White House was:

“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Mohammed, and we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this.”

Yet, when North Korea threatens movie goers over a movie, the guy in the White House criticizes the movie company for pulling the movie.

He can't recognize the events in France as a terrorist action. This guy keeps looking more and more like his a Muslim, because he just looks the other way when they do something, but criticizes others for the same thing.

When are people in the US realize that Obama doesn't have our back.
Go to
Dec 1, 2014 10:24:11   #
Rufus wrote:
I agree. the libs and the hollywood types always complain about God and everything that has made us great. They need to leave if they do not like the Constitution or the fact that this is a Christian country started by Christians.


What would we do without them and how you criticize them. After all they are smarter than the rest of us and they know what's better for us than we know ourselves. If you don't believe me - just ask them!

Personally, I rather struggle along on my own - I've managed for a long time without their help and have been more successful than most liberals.
Go to
Nov 30, 2014 10:13:58   #
keithhowell58 wrote:
The only thing you know about black people is what you see on Fox news!As an Afro American i take offense to people that make a stero type blanket bigoted statement about me or my race!Personally i didn't give a s**t about ferguson nor the verdict! Do you really think that there were only Afo Americans in that r**t? Do you really think black people are the only race that receive welfare? Do you really think black people are the only race that r**t? There is a difference between a protest and a r**t don't for one minute think there isn't a thin line between the two! R****rs could give a dam about a cause and know no reason not to commit civil unrest and l**t and burn stores and for some to get their agendas seen and heard! That is why if the media didn't cover it so much and let the police do their jobs handling the r****rs forcefully and separate the tru protesters! Do you i***ts really think all this unrest was really caused by a big black bullying thug? I didn't and don't watch anything about Ferguson and can see that! It's also about some people like Al Sharpton,Ann Coulter,Jesse Jackson, Russ( cant spell his last name,limbach or what ever his last name, you know who iam talking about) Your just strocking there ego and padding there pockets! Even though i keep current with politics not with race batters! In closing not every black man r**ts when a another black man is k**led by a white police officer! Thank You!
The only thing you know about black people is what... (show quote)


Understand your point. But guess what - as a white person I'm tired of being called a r****t because I don't support Obama dumb policies that don't work. If a white person disagrees with Obama we must be r****t according to the liberals.

It's time black and white people stand up against the real r****ts in this country who are trying divide Americans. There are some great African Americans in this country and there are some bad ones. There are some great W***e A******ns and there are some bad ones. It's time the good people stand up and denounce the bad ones regardless of their color. The bad ones are only interested in one thing - themselves. Of course, if you have more than one person it is tough to agree a 100% on anything and sometimes it is even difficult to agree with oneself 100% - in essence, mixed feeling about issues. That should tell us there are two sides at least to every situation. But we all sat down and talked in a rational way we could solve our problems.

In t***h we have more in common than we have not in common. If we start with attempting to ensure the things we agree on it would build trust and collaboration so that we can tackle those items that more difficult. But even areas where we disagree there is usually some common ground, so you start there and let it spread.

The silent majority needs to stand up. People that say they are independent don't help. They claim they want to v**e for the best candidate. No problem there. But most states if you not a party member you can't v**e in the primary so we tend to get the extremist views represented in the general e******n. We need the moderates to v**e in the primary so that we get better candidates in the general e******n. Besides if you belong to party it doesn't mean you can't v**e for whoever you want in the general e******n. However, the key is getting good candidates to come out of the primaries. Stop sitting on the fence. Pick the party that you support the most - then v**e to ensure the right candidates win the nomination. Plus it's time every v**ed. When less than 50% of the registered v**ers v**e, we have a problem. It allows the crazies to control our government because they show up to v**e. If all those in the middle v**ed in the primaries and the general e******n, we would get more moderate v**ers that truly represent the majority of the public. What we get now are elected officials that represent small groups of people and the rest of the public complains. It's our fault. We need to all stand up - that includes white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.