Signs?MEME's and the like!

[JustAlex]

^Are all of these things self projections of conservatives?

Jesus Christ!

[duane1969]

Pic # 5 and #6 lower left corner.....I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean?

That is Zimmerman, the "cracker" that killed Trayvon Martin...nevermind he is Latino. I don't know who the woman is but my guess is she is an idiot liberal who calls herself a native American.

Pic #7 Immigration a non-issue? Is that why Liberals are constantly talking about it, while the conservative point is to just deport everyone regardless of status or situation? This is more self projection isn't it?

Status and situation are not relevant when illegal immigration is the subject. If a person seeks amnesty they do not do it by hopping the border, working a crop field for 6 months and then claiming political asylum after they are caught.

[JustAlex]

Actually it is an intelligence thing (OK, ya got me, it IS a conservative thing after all). Any college professor worth their degree will tell you that Wikipedia is an unreliable source and unacceptable for documentation purposes. Between my wife and myself we have degrees from colleges and universities in 4 different states, and we have always been told that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. If you want to argue that a website that can be manipulated and altered by any monkey with a keyboard is reliable and factual without question, then there is no point in us debating this any further.

You're kidding right?

Didn't I say that wikipedia is NOT to be used as a source but rather a referencing site?

Let me give you a simple analogy:

Let's pretend I had to do a paper on the NFL and I don't know anything about the NFL, so I type "NFL" into google....the first thing that comes up is wikipedia.

I go into it and start reading, it'll tell me various information about the NFL......WITH annotations.

I can then start doing my paper while checking the references within the site.

In other words, I'm NOT going to copy word by word what wikipedia says, but I'm going to fact check the material.

So if it says...."The first super bowl was in 1789 when the New England redcoats faced off against the New York Irishmen"

I'll know this is either false or seriously questionable, if when I check the source to the site "Nfl.com" it tells me that the first Super Bowl was actually in 1967 when the Green Bay Packers defeated the Kansas City Chiefs.

IF you use wikipedia correctly, you don't have to worry about the nonsense some people edit the site to be.....simple isn't it.

[duane1969]

If you bothered to read anything other than my responses you would know that the person I was speaking to referenced Wikipedia DIRECTLY. Reading something I said and taking it out of context to seek an argument with me is silly. So all of your ranting after that is pointless. Directly quoting Wikipedia text as a source is unilaterally unaccepted. If you want to use the sources quoted in Wikipedia, feel free, but that is two different things. Wikipedia text is a narrative written by an unknown source and thus is not generally accepted as a reliable source.

Even at that, the person in question said that Reagan negotiated the release of hostages to happen after he became president, which was neither supported by Wikipedia nor the sources on Wikipedia...nor historical facts.

[87sluggo]

Today has been FUN, thanks guys!!! But the political discourse is hurting the productivity of this proletariat. I gotta go, my dispatch board is full and I don't remember where any of my drivers are at :(

Peace out, comrades!!!

[87sluggo]

If you bothered to read anything other than my responses you would know that the person I was speaking to referenced Wikipedia DIRECTLY. Reading something I said and taking it out of context to seek an argument with me is silly. So all of your ranting after that is pointless. Directly quoting Wikipedia text as a source is unilaterally unaccepted. If you want to use the sources quoted in Wikipedia, feel free, but that is two different things. Wikipedia text is a narrative written by an unknown source and thus is not generally accepted as a reliable source.

Even at that, the person in question said that Reagan negotiated the release of hostages to happen after he became president, which was neither supported by Wikipedia nor the sources on Wikipedia...nor historical facts.

Ok, last thing then...........I DID SAY that the article was sourced from various outlets. I linked to the article so y'all could see the sources and follow along to them. Whether you believe the article or not, there are things to back it up............

Toodle-oo

[JustAlex]

That is Zimmerman, the "cracker" that killed Trayvon Martin...nevermind he is Latino. I don't know who the woman is but my guess is she is an idiot liberal who calls herself a native American.

Err...you understand that "Latino" is not a race, right?

I'm Latino, wanna figure out what race I am? Maybe I have dark, light, or tan skin? How would you know if I just told you I'm Latin?

Technically Zimmerman IS White and Latin at the same time....one deals with race the other with ethnicity....but whatever, I don't even care about it since I've never heard a single Liberal call Zimmerman "cracker".

Status and situation are not relevant when illegal immigration is the subject.

Of course not.....if you are a person devoid of feelings and compassion.

So if an illegal immigrant came to the U.S (Yes I understand he broke the rules) but what is done is done....he makes a family (NOT because he wants to use it for leverage but because that's simply what people do) and he has a kids who are 100% American, you have no problem deporting him and possibly his kids (which are 100% American)?

There is no empathy, sympathy or ANY kind of humanity in such a decision.

If we can stop with the nonsense partisan politics all the darn time, we can probably figure out a humane way to treat this situation other than "DEPORT ALL OF THEM!!!"

[Wickabee]

Technically Latino is white. The only actual races are:
Caucasoid
Negroid
Mongoloid

[centrehice]

Oil Sands and Oil Shale - 11.9 cents profit on every gallon of gasoline refined. (cost is in the removal of rock and dirt)

Fracking Drilled, Angular and Horizontal Drilling - 14.9 cents profit on every gallon of gasoline refined.

Rig Drilled Straight - 18.0 cents profit on every gallon of gasoline refined.

Fixxed


The assumption that Gasoline is an Oil Companies most profitable outcome is merely that, an assumption. Gasoline is one of the most costly distillates to produce. Other fossil fuel materials of origin make gasoline look like it isn't even worth cracking. Oil companies make billions on other distillate applications much less costly than gasoline.

[Wickabee]

Fixed that for ya ;)

Call it what you want. It's better than killing people.