We Are In Hell Maxine
by Big Dog on Aug 21, 2011 at 16:25 Political
Maxine Waters, the race baiter Congress critter, had some not so nice words for the TEA Party. Maxine, ignoring her Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm), who called for civility, said the TEA Party could go straight to hell.
“I’m not afraid of anybody,” the California congresswoman told constituents in footage that appeared on ABC affiliate KABC in Los Angeles, not backing down from comments made about President Obama earlier in the week. “This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned — the tea party can go straight to hell.” Daily Caller
Here is a news flash Maxine, we are already in hell. The TEA Party and the rest of the country has been placed in hell by the liberal policies of you and your party. The liberal policies that promise everything to everybody in exchange for votes has sent us to hell in a hand basket. The tax and spend policies of liberals coupled with social programs that enslave generations of Americans has provided us a hell on Earth courtesy of the liberal task masters.
By assuming that you and the the other elitists are better able to run people’s lives and spend their money, you have tied an anchor around the necks of countless Americans who are trapped in your liberal web and remain dependent on government redistribution schemes.
Yes Maxine, we are in a hell that you and your ilk created and now you have the audacity to lash out at citizens who care about the well being of this country? Shame on you!
I know if a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity had said the Congressional Black Caucus could go straight to hell you and the other race baiters would be throwing a hissy fit while working hard to slam down your race card.
Well Maxine, I guess you did not get the memo from Obama calling for civility. I guess they should have written it on a bank bailout document or a welfare bill or perhaps a $100 dollar bill from a lobbyist so you would be sure to see it.
But since you have no civility let me give you a back at ya. You, the Congressional Black Caucus, elitist politicians, all liberals, and all your union goons and thugs can all go straight to hell.
And while you are heading there Maxine, you can go screw yourself.
The TEA Party is not going away and we have all you statists in our cross hairs. We will take as many of you down in 2012 as we possibly can.
The only thing I want is for your ethics violations investigation to be completed before we bounce you.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: ethics, hell, liberals, lies, maxine waters, tea party
Thanks for finally calling blacks on their racism and responding to it with justified anger. I am so sick of them blaming whitie for everything wrong and showing their ignorance by giving a pass to every black because of their skin color only. I wish Martin Luther King was still here. He wanted the day when everyone would be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their sin. Black
racism is disrespectful to his memory.
If MLK was here, he’d be hounded out of the Democratic party, simply because of his beliefs in self-empowerment, and individual opportunity.
Except MLK was a Republican…
Most blacks were and became Democrat during the LBJ Great Society. Johnson said they needed to appease the blacks (he used a different word) to get their votes. They became dependent on government and the single parent household rate shot through the roof.
sorry, type-o color of sKin, not sin.
Hell, I will say it- the Congressional Black Caucus can go straight to hell- after all, it is not like their lives are enhancing the course of civilization, just coarsening civilization.
It is not like they are even right, just flapping their lips in a vulgar way, saying vulgar things.
“Well Maxine, I guess you did not get the memo from Obama calling for civility.”
The funny thing is that when I saw Waters’ comment even before I read your post I thought it sounded exactly like something you would say. Maybe that’s why it offends you? Somebody talking tough, claiming to be brave, swearing a little for good measure? Isn’t that your style of rhetoric?
“And while you are heading there Maxine, you can go screw yourself.”
Oh, I rest my case.
Maxine, (and quite a LOT of liberals, for that matter)look like they were beaten with an ugly stick- perhaps that accounts for their insecurity complex- they are all a great ad for retro-active abortions.
Maxine’s so ugly, she’d be a two-bagger.
First of all Adam, I never called for civility and don’t care about it either way. It was your messiah calling for it and your libs having a cow about cross hairs.
And that snide little part about claiming to be brave. I don’t know what you are implying but you are in no position to question such a thing of anyone. Typical liberal.
My style? I use a few swear words and pretend to be brave? You are projecting my little liberal coward.
Now, as for Maxine, don’t even make a comparison. That coward could not hold a candle to anyone.
And Adam, I am not a politician paid with taxpayer dollars. This person insulted a very large portion of the population and you defend it when you know your ilk got upset when Ross Perot said you people as if that was an insult to a particular race. You know that your ilk gets upset at any perceived insult toward one group or another. And yet, you defend Maxine because she is a liberal.
As for calling names an d pretending to be brave, that is more your MO. People like you and Darrell and that little fella Billy Joe along with Meathead talk real tough and act real bad because it is easy to do on the web. Get an invite to discuss those words in person and you all slink back under the rock. So project all you want, I understand that it is tough to be a real man when you are a liberal.
Speaking of Darrell, this made me think of him. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45722
And it offends because a politician is insulting a large portion of the population. Suppose Paul Ryan said the Rainbow Push Coalition (Jackson’s extortion group) could go straight to hell. You know your pink panties would be in a knot.
Just you pretending to be brave, pretending to be a man.
I like the way this guy says it about the libs and their attacks.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/23/cain-unfazed-by-garofalo-responds-with-trademark-humor/
“Except MLK was a Republican…”
Yes, and so am I, right? If you say so? I mean, I don’t vote Republican or back Republican candidates. Neither did MLK. In fact I back Democrats just like MLK did. But if you say I’m a Republican just like you say King was one, then I guess you must be right. Do I get a hat or a button or something now that I’m in your club?
“As for calling names and pretending to be brave, that is more your MO.”
Really? I’m not the one that treats every conversation like this is a playground and you can make yourself be correct simply by puffing out your chest and threatening physical violence on those that dare to disagree.
“You know your pink panties would be in a knot.”
Oh, you said I have panties. Pink, too. Zing. Now everybody here knows I’m not much of a man after all. I’m ruined.
You can ignore history, you are good at that. MLK was a Republican. He supported Republicans (as did his father and most blacks of the time). That changed later on but the facts are the facts. You can look them up if you would like. Here is a great article. King’s neice said he was a Republican but I guess you know better?
King was attacked by Democrats so why would he vote for them?
Adam, the only time I call people out directly is when they threaten or imply they would do me harm. I am there, just say when. As for any other time when I discuss generalities, well I think people with brains can figure that part out.
“King’s neice said he was a Republican but I guess you know better?”
Yes, I really do know better:
King didn’t call himself a Democrat or a Republican as an adult but he voted for Democrats. If I don’t call myself a Democrat or a Republican but I voted for John Kerry and Barack Obama, can you still call me a Republican? You wouldn’t know for sure I was a Democrat but you certainly have evidence to suggest I may be and no evidence I am a Republican. You would not call King a Republican except for the fact that it is useful for you to imagine that he would be on your side today.
“Adam, the only time I call people out directly is when they threaten or imply they would do me harm.”
I have never threatened or implied harm but yet you have responded to me with Maxine Waters’ style playground rhetoric many, many times including in this thread. You can’t help it I guess.
You have certainly raised questions about me that would require such a response.
As for King, his father was a Republican and he was raised that way. His neice says he was registered as a Republican. He only voted in one election and it is alleged he voted for Kennedy. This could have happened as Kennedy helped get him out of prison and Nixon did not respond to the request. King Sr endorsed Nixon.
However, the Kennedy family was after King and Democrats in general were against him and civil rights. The Republican party most closely aligned itself with the civil rights movement (the legislation was introduced by a Republican president and supported by more Republicans than Democrats) and King’s vision.
The Democrats had the racists and KKK members in the party and were against King.
The Democrats misrepresented events of the era to pursuade blacks that Republicans were racists (as Rice points out in her article) and that stuck. Especially when LBJ enslaved blacks by giving them “free” stuff for their vote. He said that they needed to make the blacks dependent on government and the party would have loyal supporters for generations (he was right). The difference is that Johnson, part of the civil rights Dems you talk about and say King supported, used the N word when he talked about them.
Not sure why you think King would support a group that had KKK memebers, segregationists, and a racist president as part of it.
“You have certainly raised questions about me that would require such a response.”
Like what?
“As for King, his father was a Republican and he was raised that way.”
I agree. His father was later a Democrat as well. I won’t suggest King never considered himself a Republican. He may have even voted for Republicans as young man. But the movement of conservative racists out of the Democratic party didn’t happen after King. It began with FDR and finished after Johnson. As an adult and a civil rights leader there is no evidence that King was a Republican or voted Republican. Again, I shouldn’t say King was a Democrat because I don’t think he considered himself one. I just know that he backed Democrats and gave no indication as an adult either in statements or in votes of being a Republican.
We do not know about any vote except for JFK. What other candidates did he support after that?
Don’t rewrite history. You and your liberal mob will continue to parrot lies about conservative racists moving out of the party. It is a lie, a rewriting of history, it is what the mob uses to keep the blacks on the plantation. LBJ, racist, Byrd, racist, as were many others.
There is not doubt there were racists in the Republican party but quit acting like they came from the Democrats and then your party had purity. A huge majority of people from that time period were racist and believed in a superior race.
The reality is, your party was (and remains) the party of racists. That is why more Republicans supported the civil rights bill than did Democrats.
LBJ was a racist who called blacks the N word and said that they needed to be placated and promised things so they would keep voting Democrat.
What policies? When most blacks were aligned with the Republican party the two family household among the group was in the 80% range. Now the single parent household is near 80%. That is the single most devastating thing that leads to dropping out of school and a life of crime.
Democrat welfare policies that paid unwed women to have more children encouraged this.
Look, 90% of blacks have followed and aligne dwith Democrats since the time of LBJ. The downfall of their family unit occurred during that time. It occurred During a period when Democrats were in charge of Congress for most of the time. Since LBJ 90% of blacks have followed liberal leaders, liberal programs, and what liberals told them to do (like how to vote and how to get welfare) and now they are seeing the result of their blind allegiance.
You can’t pin it on Republicans. You can’t pin it on racism from the right 9but you can from the left) and you can’t pin it on whitey.
“What other candidates did he support after that?”
He publicly endorsed LBJ.
“You and your liberal mob will continue to parrot lies about conservative racists moving out of the party.”
Liberal mob? That’s a new one. They did move out of the party. I don’t think that the GOP became the party of racists and the Democrats were then pure but it is a simple fact that the migration of Southern Democrats to the GOP became because the Democratic Party began to embrace civil rights and desegregation. Your side brags that the GOP freed the slaves. I would have supported that GOP. I can’t support your GOP.
Also, you won’t find me defending LBJ as this race savior but the fact remains MLK endorsed him as a better man for civil rights than his opponents.
“When most blacks were aligned with the Republican party the two family household among the group was in the 80% range.”
So it was aligning with liberals that turned it around?
“Democrat welfare policies that paid unwed women to have more children encouraged this.”
You’re kidding right? That’s pathetic and offensive and absolutely devoid of fact.
“You can’t pin it on Republicans.”
I don’t think I really tried. We’re talking about large and complex social conditions and you’re boiling it all down to liberals being in Congress while these transitions came about? Again, you base this on what?
There is no basis to the idea that southern Democrats moved to the Republican party because of civil rights. The Democrats DID NOT support civil rights. It was first introduced by a Republican president and blocked by Democrats. LBJ opposed it as did most other Democrats.
More Republicans supported and voted for the civil rights legislation than did Democrats so how does the argument that Democrats moved to the Republican party because Democrats were pushing civil rights hold water?
It is not offensive or pathetic. You get more of what you subsidize and for decades we have paid young women who have children out of wedlock. We have provided a disincentive for them to get married or for the father to stay around. When we pay for that, we get more of it.
“There is no basis to the idea that southern Democrats moved to the Republican party because of civil rights.”
No basis except the actual history of the two parties. The change didn’t happen over night. The New Deal began to shift the Democratic Party in a huge way. Look up the Dixiecrats. Look up what happened in the 1948 Democratic Convention as they started to adopt civil rights as an issue to the opposition of the Southern Democrats.
They didn’t just one day become Republicans. They started other parties that failed but eventually the Democratic South started voting GOP. How do you think Republicans started winning Southern elections if there wasn’t a realignment between Southern conservative Democrats beginning to vote Republican?
“…we have paid young women who have children out of wedlock.”
How have we paid?
“More Republicans supported and voted for the civil rights legislation than did Democrats so how does the argument that Democrats moved to the Republican party because Democrats were pushing civil rights hold water?”
For the record I’m not suggesting that more Republicans opposed civil rights than Democrats. You seem to have thought that I was re-writing history from the beginning of this thread. No, it’s simply that you’re denying that civil rights became a platform of the Democratic Party even before MLK was old enough to vote in elections. For you to suggest MLK would never consider himself a Democrat simply because Southern racist Democrats were still in the party denies that the party began to shift as early as the New Deal.
The history of this southern strategy you claim has been rewritten many times. It was not some grand scheme to get racist Democrats to move to the Republican party in order to oppse civil rights. It was not some grand scheme to involve racists in the party. Your party has been and continues to be the party of racists. Byrd never moved as part of that strategy because he had a home there. Now Billy Clinton might say Byrd only did what he had to do to get elected but the reality is, he was a racist who had a home in the Democrat party. All the racists like it there. Hell, even Clinton recognized that in the good old days Obama would be serving them coffee.
I didn’t even bring up the Southern Strategy but that did help solidify the South as a Republican bloc. I wasn’t even speaking of an organized strategy or a scheme as much as just a cultural re-alignment in the two parties.
How exactly did the Republicans take over the South in your opinion if they didn’t gain southern segregationist Democratic votes? Did southern segregationist Democrats just cease to exist leaving more GOP voters? We know southern blacks were shifting to the Democratic Party so somehow the GOP made up for that loss with some other source of voters. Where did they come from?
You think liberal politics themselves are racist which is hilarious. I know many on this site will agree with you. You’re all wrong of course but it shows how little you understand the subject of racism and civil rights.
Look, I can’t help it your party used to be progressive and on top of these issues but now makes a home for conservatives of all hats and hoods. My party has grown more and more liberal while yours has taken in any conservative that would join your ranks.
The kind of politician that would set back a civil rights agenda is not in the mainstream of the Democratic Party and hasn’t been for 50 years.
Funny you should say all hats and hoods considering the member of Congress who wore one was from your party. KKK was started by your party, hmmmmm
Liberal policies are racist. Affirmative action is racist. The welfare policies are racist. They say that blacks are not competent enough to make it on their own and must have the liberal elites step in and do for them. Your policies are based on the idea that without help, blacks could not make it.
The tragedy is, those very policies have kept them down for decades.
Is there any other explanation for having these policies except that you all believe they need the help because they can’t take care of themselves?
And just because you claim people are wrong does not make it so. We already know your skewed ideas of racism. If a Republican says it then it is racist and if a Democrat says it then it can’t be racist. Sharpton, Jackson and many in your party have either said that, implied it, or been a party to it.
“Funny you should say all hats and hoods considering the member of Congress who wore one was from your party.”
It’s not funny. It’s just history. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Democrats started the KKK because that’s nonsense but they certainly made a place in politics for segregationists, klan members, and other racists. That’s not the modern party of course but you love to tell the story as if it is.
“Your policies are based on the idea that without help, blacks could not make it.”
No. It was just a recognition of the racism built into the structure of society itself.
“Sharpton, Jackson and many in your party have either said that, implied it, or been a party to it.”
Your problem is simply that you don’t understand how context matters. There are simply more examples of conservatives being racist and sexist than there are liberals so it’s hard to keep track. It’s like saying there are no hate crimes against whites. Of course there are. They just are few and far between compared to the actions of white people against other races they fear and hate.
You can parrot the mob line but it is not true. The Democrats started the KKK and the modern Democrat party is full of racists. White elites who think they are better than blacks.
The idea that there are more examples of racism on the right is a moronic statement. The reality is, what you call racism differs depending on who said or did it.
You change the definition so that you define what the right does as racist and what the left does as non racist. If it is racist then it is racist. You claim context but that is a ruse to keep people enslaved. Garofolo’s statements about Hermain Cain are racist and yet no one called her on it.
“You can parrot the mob line but it is not true.”
Who handed that talking point down to you? You use it a lot lately.
“The Democrats started the KKK…”
No, they really didn’t. You act as if a group of Democrats got together and said, “Hey, you know what will help our party? Let’s form a terrorist group.” But either way the KKK has always been a right-wing terrorist group whether you call them Democrats or not.
“Garofolo’s statements about Hermain Cain are racist and yet no one called her on it.”
How so?