[quote]H factor wrote:
For fucks sake on a bodybuilding message board people are mad about this? [/quote]
Don’t forget the majority of the people that waste their time in here don’t even lift…it seems to be inversely proportional to post count actually…
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I could fill pages with stuff I think the President and his wife need to do differently, but I have no idea why encouraging people to drink more water would be one of them. [/quote]
Because the morons that somehow manage to wake up and log onto their computer every day want to bitch about something? I really have no idea how some of these idiots get by in their day to day lives…
Drinking water is now controversial lol…It really is funny to see how far some of these guys will go…I can’t imagine what’s next…pure gold[/quote]
You missed it dude.
TELLING SOMEONE to drink more water is sad part.
Nathan, I want you to breathe more. Yes, breathe. It will prevent illness, feed the pink unicorns in your backyard, and cause your favorite American Idol contestant to win.
Because I know you weren’t already breathing until I told you to do it.
ITT: Right wingnuts complaining about the First Lady wanting people to drink more water.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m feelin’ 'ya, AC…
But being fat, lazy, stupid, and entitled…and being on food stamps and Welfare…is not the exclusive domain of Liberals…
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah, but Lady O isn’t worried about alienating the fat, lazy, stupid, entitled CONSERVATIVES on welfare and food stamps. They don’t vote for her party, and there’s only about thirty or forty of them anyway.
“…there’s only about thirty or forty of them anyway…”
Right…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…there’s only about thirty or forty of them anyway…”
Right…
Mufasa[/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yeah, but Lady O isn’t worried about alienating the fat, lazy, stupid, entitled CONSERVATIVES on welfare and food stamps. They don’t vote for her party, and there’s only about thirty or forty of them anyway. [/quote]
Disclaimer- My understanding is that Pew is generally reliable. Correct me if I’m wrong.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/12/Benefits_FINAL_12-20.pdf
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yeah, but Lady O isn’t worried about alienating the fat, lazy, stupid, entitled CONSERVATIVES on welfare and food stamps. They don’t vote for her party, and there’s only about thirty or forty of them anyway. [/quote]
Disclaimer- My understanding is that Pew is generally reliable. Correct me if I’m wrong.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/12/Benefits_FINAL_12-20.pdf
[/quote]
The last part of my post was sarcastic.
The paper lists Medicare / Medicaid as one of the “welfare benefits”, which skews the results somewhat in that old people, many of whom vote Republican, are on Medicare.
The demographics are dealing only with urban, rural, black, white, Hispanic, income level and who they vote for in the last election. Nothing in there about how many of each group are fat, lazy or stupid. Or for that matter, how many of them are conservative. The way I see it, if you’re on welfare and food stamps, you might be a Republican, but you are probably not a conservative.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yeah, but Lady O isn’t worried about alienating the fat, lazy, stupid, entitled CONSERVATIVES on welfare and food stamps. They don’t vote for her party, and there’s only about thirty or forty of them anyway. [/quote]
Disclaimer- My understanding is that Pew is generally reliable. Correct me if I’m wrong.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/12/Benefits_FINAL_12-20.pdf
[/quote]
The last part of my post was sarcastic.
The paper lists Medicare / Medicaid as one of the “welfare benefits”, which skews the results somewhat in that old people, many of whom vote Republican, are on Medicare.
The demographics are dealing only with urban, rural, black, white, Hispanic, income level and who they vote for in the last election. Nothing in there about how many of each group are fat, lazy or stupid. Or for that matter, how many of them are conservative. The way I see it, if you’re on welfare and food stamps, you might be a Republican, but you are probably not a conservative. [/quote]
You said it more eloquently that I was about to. Any “self identified conservative” who is on welfare or SSI is deluding themselves or has a legitimate disability. Trailer trash or rural or “republican” =/= conservative.
Okay, AC…like Push, DB and a few others…you’re a straight-shooter…so I expect nothing but a straight-up response…
It seems like you’ve set up artificial parameters.
IF…by definition…anyone receiving Government assistance is a Liberal (unless they “really” need it…then they may or may not be Conservative)…then by default, there can only be Liberals getting some form of Government assistance.
I can’t agree with that.
In my Job (which is in a VERY red State, by the way…)…I run into a lot of People who feel that the President and Gays are the very definition of evil…and they are on Government Assistance because of lost jobs, lack of jobs, our stagnant economy, etc…
(But I guess they are still “Conservative” because they “really” need the assistance?)
Help me out here.
Mufasa
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You said it more eloquently that I was about to. Any “self identified conservative” who is on welfare or SSI is deluding themselves or has a legitimate disability. Trailer trash or rural or “republican” =/= conservative.[/quote]
Varqanir, it’s for folks like this that I posted that.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay, AC…like Push, DB and a few others…you’re a straight-shooter…so I expect nothing but a straight-up response…
It seems like you’ve set up artificial parameters.
IF…by definition…anyone receiving Government assistance is a Liberal (unless they “really” need it…then they may or may not be Conservative)…then by default, there can only be Liberals getting some form of Government assistance.
I can’t agree with that.
In my Job (which is in a VERY red State, by the way…)…I run into a lot of People who feel that the President and Gays are the very definition of evil…and they are on Government Assistance because of lost jobs, lack of jobs, our stagnant economy, etc…
(But I guess they are still “Conservative” because they “really” need the assistance?)
Help me out here.
Mufasa [/quote]
Weird how that works isn’t it? I grew up in Southwest VA, which you will see is a SEA of red on the election map…yet they receive the majority of federal assistance that goes to VA, per capita…how strange.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay, AC…like Push, DB and a few others…you’re a straight-shooter…so I expect nothing but a straight-up response…
It seems like you’ve set up artificial parameters.
IF…by definition…anyone receiving Government assistance is a Liberal (unless they “really” need it…then they may or may not be Conservative)…then by default, there can only be Liberals getting some form of Government assistance.
I can’t agree with that.
In my Job (which is in a VERY red State, by the way…)…I run into a lot of People who feel that the President and Gays are the very definition of evil…and they are on Government Assistance because of lost jobs, lack of jobs, our stagnant economy, etc…
(But I guess they are still “Conservative” because they “really” need the assistance?)
Help me out here.
Mufasa [/quote]
Weird how that works isn’t it? I grew up in Southwest VA, which you will see is a SEA of red on the election map…yet they receive the majority of federal assistance that goes to VA, per capita…how strange.
[/quote]
Oh I agree !
Here in Los Angeles, you will see a shade of blue that is bluer than Papa Smurf’s nutsack, who insists on taxing the rich, receive major tax exemptions and subsidies. In fact, Hollywood receives $1.5 Billion in gubment money each year.
Apple Inc., the God to tree-huggers and beard-scratchers alike, avoids paying millions in taxes each year, yet has an allegiance among the Flea-bagging, Prius driving, Starbucks-drinking Obama Mafia.
There can be only one solution: republicans need to boycott water or, at the very least, change the name of water to freedom drink. That plan worked so well before.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
bluer than Papa Smurf’s nutsack[/quote]
If you lived in a village with a hundred dudes and only one chick who didn’t put out, you’d have blue balls, too.
Hey, them’s fightin’ words. I have an iPhone an iPad and a MacBook, and have been known to hug trees (while climbing them with a rifle on my back), drink Starbucks coffee, and scratch my beard on occasion (beards can be itchy) but that doesn’t make me no got-dam LIBERAL (… well, at least not as you would define it. I define a “liberal” as one who loves his liberty…but I also conserve electricity, water and money. Does this make me a conservative?)
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
bluer than Papa Smurf’s nutsack[/quote]
If you lived in a village with a hundred dudes and only one chick who didn’t put out, you’d have blue balls, too.
Hey, them’s fightin’ words. I have an iPhone an iPad and a MacBook, and have been known to hug trees (while climbing them with a rifle on my back), drink Starbucks coffee, and scratch my beard on occasion (beards can be itchy) but that doesn’t make me no got-dam LIBERAL (… well, at least not as you would define it. I define a “liberal” as one who loves his liberty…but I also conserve electricity, water and money. Does this make me a conservative?)[/quote]
Conserveral. Or Libervative. or Libcon.
Libcon sounds kinda pejorative though, or possibly a state of alarm like “we are at threat level Libcon 1. When boarding you will be required to dispose of all starbucks products and stow all contraband in you rectum”.
Most liberals are extremists. Moderation is the opposite of extremism. It’s one of the hallmarks of Constitutional Conservatism, and therefore a virtue. However, Barry Goldwater said that moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue, and extremism in the protection of liberty is no vice. Does that make Goldwater a liberal or a conservative? It’s all so confusing.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
There can be only one solution: republicans need to boycott water or, at the very least, change the name of water to freedom drink. That plan worked so well before. [/quote]
It’s not water! It’s Socialism Juice!!!
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
There can be only one solution: republicans need to boycott water or, at the very least, change the name of water to freedom drink. That plan worked so well before. [/quote]
It’s not water! It’s Socialism Juice!!! [/quote]
H2Obama.
Of course, this would not be the first time that water was politicized and associated with support of a socialist regime.