• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Maxine Waters says "Tea Party can go straight to hell"

No, it was ALREADY SPENT. It is money we owe people for bonds they bought from us that were due, payments of veteran's benefits and social security that we are legally obligated to pay, bills for electricity at government buildings, salaries for hours people already worked...

no, it was money we had decided to spend - the only money necessary to avoid default was the interest on the debt.

You guys really need to get that through your head. Your representatives were not fighting to cut spending, they were fighting to refuse to pay for spending they already authorized just 2 months ago.

that is incorrect. Republican leadership said from the get go that the debt ceiling would be raised; simply that it would be tied to spending cuts.


however, if this is what you want to argue, then I would be interested in how you justify DEMOCRAT opposition to the debt-ceiling rise ; more Democrats voted against it than Republicans did, and the entire Democrat caucus in the Senate did so back in 2006.
 
Of course, those calls would be drowned out by the sound of cheering from the other side of the aisle.

please cite for us the last time (for example) a sitting republican president called democrats the enemy of a certain ethnicity, and urged that ethnicity to "punish" them? with widespread republican approval?

Democrats are the party more prone to violent language.
 
please cite for us the last time (for example) a sitting republican president called democrats the enemy of a certain ethnicity, and urged that ethnicity to "punish" them? with widespread republican approval?

Democrats are the party more prone to violent language.

Always singling out something that completely misses the point of the post. Allow me to quote the line that is more to the point:

The problem is hyper partisanship.

As he said, not democrats. Not republicans.

:roll:
 
Remember this? Just more evidence she's anti-American. The question is communist or socialist?




Remember when she apologized to Castro?

Maxine Waters apologizes to
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059756298 said:
Remember this? Just more evidence she's anti-American. The question is communist or socialist?




Remember when she apologized to Castro?

Maxine Waters apologizes to


Lord, I do wish when people labeled they knew what the words they use mean. :coffeepap
 
Lord, I do wish when people labeled they knew what the words they use mean. :coffeepap


Oh so smug one, please tell us that what Waters said is not the textbook definition of Socialism.....Please try and make that case....

j-mac
 
Oh so smug one, please tell us that what Waters said is not the textbook definition of Socialism.....Please try and make that case....

j-mac

Please, a 20 second clip, of someone struggling to find her language? Is that the best you got j. Is this what you call honest, intelligent discorse?

No, it is not textbook definition. Look those words up and get back to me.
 
Please, a 20 second clip, of someone struggling to find her language? Is that the best you got j. Is this what you call honest, intelligent discorse?

No, it is not textbook definition. Look those words up and get back to me.


Oh I am shocked, that libs would pull out a well used one from the playbook and claim the "out of context" pap....

She said "socialize, er...um go in and take over..." Now she might have meant "Nationalize" however, that also is a tool of Socialists, and Marxists like Chavez.

But you did ask me to look it up, so here it is...

so·cial·ism   
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

Now, that is exactly what she was saying...The idea that it wasn't is what is dishonest here.

j-mac
 
Oh I am shocked, that libs would pull out a well used one from the playbook and claim the "out of context" pap....

She said "socialize, er...um go in and take over..." Now she might have meant "Nationalize" however, that also is a tool of Socialists, and Marxists like Chavez.

But you did ask me to look it up, so here it is...



Now, that is exactly what she was saying...The idea that it wasn't is what is dishonest here.

j-mac

Yes, I know j. You want permission to misrepresent. I'm sure there's a playbook somewhere for that kind of dishonesty.

You have to actually control the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. Saying we won't let your drill everywhere you want to is not doing that.
 
Yes, I know j. You want permission to misrepresent. I'm sure there's a playbook somewhere for that kind of dishonesty.

You have to actually control the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. Saying we won't let your drill everywhere you want to is not doing that.

This is about what she said, and you are now adding on to her own words to excuse her slip that showed who she really is. In short you are twisting now Joe, and I don't want you to hurt yourself in your contortions.

j-mac
 
This is about what she said, and you are now adding on to her own words to excuse her slip that showed who she really is. In short you are twisting now Joe, and I don't want you to hurt yourself in your contortions.

j-mac

j, your clip is less than 20 seconds of what she said. Now, I suppose you believe nothing was said before or after, and you really don't want to know more, as it might screw with your narrative. But this is the problem. Anyone who presents a clip like this, regardless of party or lean, is being dishonest. When you seek to understand, you need more. You only do this type of thing when you want to misrepresent, and you only accept this when you don't want to know the truth.
 
j, your clip is less than 20 seconds of what she said. Now, I suppose you believe nothing was said before or after, and you really don't want to know more, as it might screw with your narrative. But this is the problem. Anyone who presents a clip like this, regardless of party or lean, is being dishonest. When you seek to understand, you need more. You only do this type of thing when you want to misrepresent, and you only accept this when you don't want to know the truth.


So it is no longer possible for a person to be clear in a statement unless we hear the entire hearing, and find something to let her off the hook for her gigantic slip up, and revelation of what it is that libs want to do eh....? BS! Tell me what was out of context with what she said, and the interpretation of that statement on the congressional record as well as filmed.

j-mac
 
So it is no longer possible for a person to be clear in a statement unless we hear the entire hearing, and find something to let her off the hook for her gigantic slip up, and revelation of what it is that libs want to do eh....? BS! Tell me what was out of context with what she said, and the interpretation of that statement on the congressional record as well as filmed.

j-mac

J, she was stammering, so there is no clear statement. And it is only a few words and not a statement at all, but a cut from a whole meant to fool those willing to buy such nonsense. She really says nothing here. You have to know the context of the discussion, what they were talking about, and have her FULL response. This is how meaning is determined. There's a reason the clip is so short.
 
When did Maxine become a convervative/Republican?
 
J, she was stammering, so there is no clear statement. And it is only a few words and not a statement at all, but a cut from a whole meant to fool those willing to buy such nonsense. She really says nothing here. You have to know the context of the discussion, what they were talking about, and have her FULL response. This is how meaning is determined. There's a reason the clip is so short.


Bull ****! She was caught, and the reason she was stammering is that she realized half way through the word that she was about to reveal her own ass. Now to cover up for that blatant revelation of Socialistic thinking on her part, you want to say that we must listen to the entire hearing in order to gain the "flavor" of her rhetoric. IOW, we can't believe what we hear from her, but rather we must take her word of her own spin after the fact. That sir is a disingenuous method of covering up her intentions of what she and others in congress would like to see happen to corporations concerning their profitability, or lack thereof.

To think that there are minions out there willing to buy into her BS, and cover for her destructive intent is further proof that the dishonesty that resides in today's liberal mindset is proof of a cancer within. And if you are really saying that no one can ever say anything that warrants accountability without analyzing the totality of an entire day's worth of back and forth in order to cover for a heated slip of the tongue that reveals true intent of this Marxist is absurd, and quite frankly I am surprised that someone of supposed intelligence would make it.

j-mac
 
To think that there are minions out there willing to buy into her BS, and cover for her destructive intent is further proof that the dishonesty that resides in today's liberal mindset is proof of a cancer within.
Useful idiots, they are called.
 
Bull ****! She was caught, and the reason she was stammering is that she realized half way through the word that she was about to reveal her own ass. Now to cover up for that blatant revelation of Socialistic thinking on her part, you want to say that we must listen to the entire hearing in order to gain the "flavor" of her rhetoric. IOW, we can't believe what we hear from her, but rather we must take her word of her own spin after the fact. That sir is a disingenuous method of covering up her intentions of what she and others in congress would like to see happen to corporations concerning their profitability, or lack thereof.

To think that there are minions out there willing to buy into her BS, and cover for her destructive intent is further proof that the dishonesty that resides in today's liberal mindset is proof of a cancer within. And if you are really saying that no one can ever say anything that warrants accountability without analyzing the totality of an entire day's worth of back and forth in order to cover for a heated slip of the tongue that reveals true intent of this Marxist is absurd, and quite frankly I am surprised that someone of supposed intelligence would make it.

j-mac


If you believe that, have the courage to show more. I know in these days of wanting to demonize anyone you disagree with that seeking meaning, trying to understand is not what many want to do. But not doing so is dishonest. It's a as simple as that.

And btw, for you and your friends, useful idiots often buy 20 second clips without ever asking any questions. ;)
 
See, and a con would never ever say anything like that...

tea-party-racist-signs-04-back-to-kenya2.jpg
 
See, and a con would never ever say anything like that...
Red herring.
Does nothing to diminsh the fact that Waters did -exactly- what she and those like her accuse the GOP of.
 
If you believe that, have the courage to show more. I know in these days of wanting to demonize anyone you disagree with that seeking meaning, trying to understand is not what many want to do. But not doing so is dishonest. It's a as simple as that.

And btw, for you and your friends, useful idiots often buy 20 second clips without ever asking any questions. ;)


I am not sure that you tube offers what you are looking for, so maybe if you think that there is something that exonerates Waters from her statement, which is the claim you are making, then the onus is on you to provide it....If you can.

j-mac
 
It's pretty obvious that Waters is a socialist. It's just too bad she can't use the word and admit it. Nationalize the oil industry? That is what she was advocating, after all. She didn't want to use the word "socialism" and couldn't think of the synonym "nationalize" right off hand.

She is what she is. She does not represent mainstream Democrats, however, no matter how much the Republican partisans would like to convince is she does.
 
It's pretty obvious that Waters is a socialist. It's just too bad she can't use the word and admit it. Nationalize the oil industry? That is what she was advocating, after all. She didn't want to use the word "socialism" and couldn't think of the synonym "nationalize" right off hand.

She is what she is. She does not represent mainstream Democrats, however, no matter how much the Republican partisans would like to convince is she does.

thank you for admitting the obvious that Joe refuses to. However, I must say that if we use actions rather than words, I think the shift is obvious.


j-mac
 
It's pretty obvious that Waters is a socialist. It's just too bad she can't use the word and admit it. Nationalize the oil industry? That is what she was advocating, after all. She didn't want to use the word "socialism" and couldn't think of the synonym "nationalize" right off hand.

She is what she is. She does not represent mainstream Democrats, however, no matter how much the Republican partisans would like to convince is she does.
Not so sure, and frankly, you can't base much on that single comment, especially such a short clip. Nor should someone try.

And while I think all should agree you can't make anyone member represent a party, I'm sure that is exactly what many are trying to do.
 
I am not sure that you tube offers what you are looking for, so maybe if you think that there is something that exonerates Waters from her statement, which is the claim you are making, then the onus is on you to provide it....If you can.

j-mac

This is the point j. You don't even care to know. You ask no questions, seek no greater understanding, and have the nerve to see others as useful idiots. Without seeing more, hearing someone out, you cannot make such leaps. That some don't care to listen says what we need to know.
 
This is the point j. You don't even care to know. You ask no questions, seek no greater understanding, and have the nerve to see others as useful idiots. Without seeing more, hearing someone out, you cannot make such leaps. That some don't care to listen says what we need to know.

Not at all Joe, if you have something that proves out your claim that the clip is somehow out of context, then by all means provide it, and I am open to re examining my stance, but as it stands, and in general terms, Waters provided in insight into her adherence in Marxist doctrine. If you should continue on this absurd line of dismissing the clear meaning behind her words as though something that precedes, or follows a statement of "Socializing...er...um...taking over your industry...." would be anything other than hollow words meant to cover up her slip is laughable....So by all means Joe, provide the context you think does this, or admit you just lost this round.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom