Page 2 of 40 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 599
  1. #16
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    ^^^ Carl Marx 2016 Campaign!!!!





    UN-Friggin' believable!!!

    "Change You Can Believe In"
    Not surprised at all with the idiocy the Democratic party has now reached. I'll bet half of them thought he was a descendant of Groucho. Karl Marx could never win a Presidential election running as a Democrat anyway though. He's not black/latino/female. He'd have no chance with all of the Democratic voters that are not concerned with race but make their voting decisions based primarily on race.
    Not a GoodWhite.

  2. #17
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,097

    Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    ^^^ Carl Marx 2016 Campaign!!!!





    UN-Friggin' believable!!!

    "Change You Can Believe In"
    It comes with having the best learning in the world (see signature).
    American Public Education Made Me Ignorant and MSM Keeps Me Stupid.

  3. #18
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,314

    Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    Not surprised at all with the idiocy the Democratic party has now reached. I'll bet half of them thought he was a descendant of Groucho. Karl Marx could never win a Presidential election running as a Democrat anyway though. He's not black/latino/female. He'd have no chance with all of the Democratic voters that are not concerned with race but make their voting decisions based primarily on race.
    In today's United States calling MARX a centrist isn't a stretch at all. How many far lefties call themselves centrist and even right of center? The answer is just about all of them.

    You're right about the democrats choosing candidates for the highest office based on race and gender. The minority vote and the gender vote is the only way they can win. LBJ's great society gave birth to what is now the Entitlement Nation we live in.

  4. #19
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

    Adam Carolla speaking the truth about rich liberals ideas on taxes.


    Not a GoodWhite.

  5. #20
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

    It's pretty funny watching the moronic leftists trying to figure out how to navigate their brave new world that they've forced down everyone's throat. There's so much wrong in this article it's not even funny. What a FU'ed up world it is now! Oh, and if you're a male that identifies as a female but considers him..err herself a lesbian, I have found the perfect school for you!

    Last month, Mount Holyoke College announced a more far-reaching policy: It would admit all academically qualified students regardless of their anatomy or self-proclaimed gender, except for those biologically male at birth who still identify as male. In a list that reflects just how much traditional notions of gender have been upended, Mount Holyoke said eligible candidates now include anyone born biologically female, whether identified as woman, man, neither or "other" and anyone born biologically male who identifies as a woman or "other." The school president, Lynn Pasquerella, said she and her officers made the decision after concluding it was an issue of civil rights.

    http://henrymakow.com/2014/11/gender...es-demand.html
    Not a GoodWhite.

  6. #21
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    Well, the feminists and liberals got what they wanted and woman can now fight right alongside men in the military...or can they?

    The first three women to successfully complete the Marine’s Combat Endurance Test (CET) have been asked to leave the rigorous, infantry officers training course for failing to meet the physical standards required....

    But, according to an analysis done by the Washington Free Beacon, there are interest groups in D.C. that are trying to get the Marine Corps to change the standards in the training course to help pave the way for women to fill combat roles.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/1941...andards-women/

    Gee. Who could have seen this coming? I'll also note that there were three men that failed the training course as well. So since feminism has taught us that men and women are complete equals, why will it be only the women that will inevitably get looser standards for training courses? Why should the "equal" men have higher standards to fill? This is an easy problem to solve if you think about it. Women have trouble carrying the 100 pound plus loads. I think the army should hire personal male assistants for the female soldiers to carry those heavy loads for them.
    Not a GoodWhite.

  7. #22
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,617

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!



    It works in Israel so I don't see the problem with high standards...

  8. #23
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,314

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    ^^^ sign me up Sarge...
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  9. #24
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,314

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    Well, the feminists and liberals got what they wanted and woman can now fight right alongside men in the military...or can they?

    The first three women to successfully complete the Marine’s Combat Endurance Test (CET) have been asked to leave the rigorous, infantry officers training course for failing to meet the physical standards required....

    But, according to an analysis done by the Washington Free Beacon, there are interest groups in D.C. that are trying to get the Marine Corps to change the standards in the training course to help pave the way for women to fill combat roles.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/1941...andards-women/

    Gee. Who could have seen this coming? I'll also note that there were three men that failed the training course as well. So since feminism has taught us that men and women are complete equals, why will it be only the women that will inevitably get looser standards for training courses? Why should the "equal" men have higher standards to fill? This is an easy problem to solve if you think about it. Women have trouble carrying the 100 pound plus loads. I think the army should hire personal male assistants for the female soldiers to carry those heavy loads for them.
    Under pressure from the White House they will lower the standards for everybody so the women can fit in. I think that's what the Army did.

    The way I understand it's a small percentage of women within the ranks making all the noise. Spurred on by feminists, politicans, MSM and the insanely politically correct on the outside. If the day ever comes I wonder what the reaction will be when large numbers of women start coming home in body bags.

    If and when it happens the women should be segregated from the men, female units. We need to see how they compare to the men in actual combat. If they can't do the damn job on their own men shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of a sexually integrated fighting force.

    It's very dangerous politically correct stupidity.
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  10. #25
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    Under pressure from the White House they will lower the standards for everybody so the women can fit in. I think that's what the Army did.

    The way I understand it's a small percentage of women within the ranks making all the noise. Spurred on by feminists, politicans, MSM and the insanely politically correct on the outside. If the day ever comes I wonder what the reaction will be when large numbers of women start coming home in body bags.

    If and when it happens the women should be segregated from the men, female units. We need to see how they compare to the men in actual combat. If they can't do the damn job on their own men shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of a sexually integrated fighting force.

    It's very dangerous politically correct stupidity.
    I don't know Tuck, from what I've seen of women working together, I don't think arming all of them and then putting them all together in one unit would turn out so well. There would be casualties, and it wouldn't necessarily be from the enemy!
    Not a GoodWhite.

  11. #26
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,314

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    ^^^ no doubt there would be a sharp increase in accidental shootings. I'm sure there would be a lot of footies with bullet holes in them too. Ouch!
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  12. #27
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Houston
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,036

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    I don't know Tuck, from what I've seen of women working together, I don't think arming all of them and then putting them all together in one unit would turn out so well. There would be casualties, and it wouldn't necessarily be from the enemy!
    Women, when put in a group, tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles. An entire company of armed women on their periods? Better put a large fence up to keep them penned until its over. The survivors can bury the others. LMAO

  13. #28
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,314

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    ^^^ that's perfect time to send them into combat the enemy wouldn't stand a chance...
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  14. #29
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

    Quote Originally Posted by thewanderer View Post
    Women, when put in a group, tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles. An entire company of armed women on their periods? Better put a large fence up to keep them penned until its over. The survivors can bury the others. LMAO
    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    ^^^ that's perfect time to send them into combat the enemy wouldn't stand a chance...
    Lol, yeah, this is THE best argument I've seen to date for women on the front line!
    Not a GoodWhite.

  15. #30
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

    Chick-fil-A location at DIA paused after Denver Council cites chain's LGBT stances

    Robin Kniech, the council's first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating "corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination." She was first to raise Chick-fil-A leaders' politics during a Tuesday committee hearing.

    The normally routine process of approving an airport concession deal has taken a rare political turn. The Business Development Committee on Tuesday stalled the seven-year deal with a new franchisee of the popular chain for two weeks.

    Should the committee reject the lease, an individual member if one is willing could introduce the concession deal in the full council. Ten of the 13 members attended Tuesday's meeting, and none rose to defend Chick-fil-A, although some didn't weigh in.

    "We can do better than this brand in Denver at our airport, in my estimation," new member Jolon Clark said.

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28...ick-fil-at-dia

    What a bunch of intolerant crap from the tolerant crowd! Never has Chick-fil-a discriminated against it's employees or customers, yet horror of all horrors, the CEO of Chick-fil-a offered his own, honest opinion on gay marriage, and it wasn't the opinion that the tolerant crowd says it's supposed to be! So now, anyone who might have actually wanted to eat at Chick-fil-a, gay or not, won't be able to because the CEO is a boogeyman and hurts a lesbian councilwoman's feelings. "Hi, I'm tolerant, and I'm going to tell you where you can eat!"
    Not a GoodWhite.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •