DescentBB

A very sad commentary on the state of our country...

Smitten teen girls stir up #FreeJahar mania for Boston Marathon bombings suspect

Thousands of American teen girls are crushing on Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev, 19 — and leading a social-media movement to exonerate him.

The swooning teens will not accept allegations that the bushy-haired college kid — whom they refer to by his nickname, “Jahar” — and his brother, Tamerlan, 26, killed three and maimed hundreds by setting off bombs at the April 15 race and killed an MIT police officer during the ensuing manhunt.

While some scrawl the hashtag “#FreeJahar” on their hands with markers, an 18-year-old in Topeka, Kansas, is going to the extreme — she wants the Dzhokhar’s words inked on her arm forever.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/g ... 618gAVXT0O

Low information voters-to-be...

Oh my God, teenagers are acting stupid! Let's make a bull★■◆● political comparison!

how the ★■◆● does this have anything to do with obama?

Ferno wrote:how the ★■◆● does this have anything to do with obama?

Low information voters are what got him elected.

again, I'll repeat myself. How does this have anything to do with obama?

or are you two in a 'try to tie this into obama, no matter how insane it is' mode again?

Ferny, these girls who only look at the bomber see good looks, youth and nothing else. They can't believe someone like him can be a terrorist and mass murderer. The same with the low information voters who only saw in Obama someone who is cool and well spoken...not his lack of credentials to run anything but his mouth. Now do you see the tie in?

woodchip wrote:Now do you see the tie in?

No.

CobGobbler wrote:

woodchip wrote:Now do you see the tie in?

No.

I'm not surprised

what's hilarious is the 'only low information voters' caused Obama to win, twice. Despite data that professionals, scientists and other HIGH information voters favored him both times......like I say, hilarious. Once again, keep repeating the lie and hope it sticks. Anyone still buying the Kenya birth, card-carrying Muslim, hates White people, socialist revolutionary lies? Not many.

Even you slick are smart enough to understand that it was traditionally the undecideds that determined the outcome. Romney won the undecideds but lost because Obama got a large amount of those swooning girl types votes. And yeah there were intelligent people that voted for Obama just as there were for Romney.

woodchip wrote:Ferny, these girls who only look at the bomber see good looks, youth and nothing else. They can't believe someone like him can be a terrorist and mass murderer. The same with the low information voters who only saw in Obama someone who is cool and well spoken...not his lack of credentials to run anything but his mouth. Now do you see the tie in?

This is pure conjecture. no tie in at all. only in your mind.

so.. how does this have anything to do with obama?

All style and no substance.

Why bother…some people will see the connection…some won’t.

I will give you 5 bucks if you can guess which is which.

A cult of personality is always invisible to its members.

woodchip wrote:Ferny, these girls who only look at the bomber see good looks, youth and nothing else. They can't believe someone like him can be a terrorist and mass murderer. The same with the low information voters who only saw in Obama someone who is cool and well spoken...not his lack of credentials to run anything but his mouth. Now do you see the tie in?

Yeah, like all those stupid racist white voters who jump up and join a new, upstart, smooth talking political group founded by self-serving corporate political interests couching their "rebellion" based on anti-big government and lower taxes agitprop, all because they have a deep, underlying resentment to being bottom boys to the newly voted in black man president.

Low information in that they only see a 'cute kid' (or cool black dude vs old boring white dude).

If you mentioned 'Benghazi,' they'd think you were referring to a Starbucks coffee...

That he is a mass murderer/terrorist doesn't matter....nor does a delusional president that thinks he is the second coming of Hugo Chavez. (Using the IRS to intimidate/harass 'enemies', spying on internal workings of the press, collecting information on all of us, willfully ignoring the deaths of four Americans including our ambassador in what would normally be seen as an act of war for political reasons...etc.)

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Ferny, these girls who only look at the bomber see good looks, youth and nothing else. They can't believe someone like him can be a terrorist and mass murderer. The same with the low information voters who only saw in Obama someone who is cool and well spoken...not his lack of credentials to run anything but his mouth. Now do you see the tie in?

Yeah, like all those stupid racist white voters who jump up and join a new, upstart, smooth talking political group founded by self-serving corporate political interests couching their "rebellion" based on anti-big government and lower taxes agitprop, all because they have a deep, underlying resentment to being bottom boys to the newly voted in black man president.

Do you have some clear info that the white tea party members were racist or are you doing a slick number? Only thing I remember racist was SEIU thugs knocking to the ground a black tea party member.

Edit:
Let me add this to the extreme discomfort of TC's cherished beliefs:

"A new Gallup poll shows that the Tea Party movement best reflects the racial composition of the country (which only matters because liberals incessantly point out that Tea Partiers are largely white)."

From CNS:

" According to Gallup, 75 percent of the U.S. population is non-Hispanic White, while 11 percent are non-Hispanic black, and 15 percent belong to other races. Meanwhile, 79% of Tea Party movement supporters are non-Hispanic white, while 6 percent are non-Hispanic black, and 15 percent belong to other races.

Oh, it didn't start out that way, I agreee. But it quickly was taken over and turned into a hateful, spiteful group. And the 79% of tea partiers you quote that are non-Hispanic whites should tell you volumes. A little lily white leaning don't you think? Deal with it. These people aren't Libertarians or Republicans, they're racist's, no matter how you sugar coat what their saying. No one told these idiots with their racist signs to leave the party either. Shame.

http://thegrio.com/2013/04/09/tea-party ... -movement/

http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-d ... -tea-pary/

tunnelcat wrote:Oh, it didn't start out that way, I agreee. But it quickly was taken over and turned into a hateful, spiteful group. And the 79% of tea partiers you quote that are non-Hispanic whites should tell you volumes. A little lily white leaning don't you think? Deal with it. These people aren't Libertarians or Republicans, they're racist's, no matter how you sugar coat what their saying. No one told these idiots with their racist signs to leave the party either. Shame.

http://thegrio.com/2013/04/09/tea-party ... -movement/

http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-d ... -tea-pary/

Those within the 'Tea Party' that are racist, xenophobic and so on are in the minority TC.

I didn't see people condemning the entire 'Occupy Wallstreet' movement for the rapes/violence/public defecation/drug use and vandalism that were quite common. NONE of which happened during 'Tea Party' gatherings. In fact, 'Tea Party' supporters were beaten and intimidated by thugs.

Does it matter if a group of people are 'left' or 'right' when it comes to crime? Seems it does. The mere perception- PERCEPTION, mind you...NOT ACTION can condemn entire movements of people if they're not state approved. Obama and several prominent democrats supported 'Occupy Wallstreet.'

Doesn't it bother you in the least that our government is targetting people for 'thought crime?'

I wonder if it bothers you in the slightest, TC.

woodchip wrote:All style and no substance.

says the guy with the obama hate-boner.

No one who voted in the last decade is a low-information voter. We are in the information age. We are completely saturated in information. You might argue the quality of the information people get, but then again I see a lot of Fox news citations here too.

The end.

In an age where a good portion if the population cannot name a founding father, or who a current supreme court justice is, I respectfully disagree with you.

only 7 percent of those surveyed could name the first four presidents in order: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Only 30 percent knew that Thomas Jefferson was the third president, but 57 percent identified Jefferson and the main author of the Declaration of Independence and 57 percent knew that George Washington led the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:All style and no substance.

says the guy with the obama hate-boner.

At least I can still get a boner...

More importantly.why is ferno interested in yours

vision wrote:No one who voted in the last decade is a low-information voter. We are in the information age. We are completely saturated in information.

No, most people who voted in the last decade did so after being bombarded with sound bites designed to polarize them and obfuscate reality. A high information voter would be someone who invests a lot more time into sorting through what they can learn beyond the sound bites....
There are far too few of them.

vision wrote:You might argue the quality of the information people get, but then again I see a lot of Fox news citations here too.

The end.

If Fox is the only outlet putting out the right wing sound bites you will see a concentration of Fox citations compared to the assortment of mainstream outlets that provide the left wing sound bites. In the end your Fox concentration assumptions don't prove what you imply they do.

woodchip wrote: At least I can still get a boner...

entirely TMI

woodchip wrote:At least I can still get a boner...

I'm suprised you can still get it up without viagra.

Ohhhhhh SNAP!

Well, it was a funny side trek.

By the way, I agree with CUDA. All you have to do is watch Jaywalking on Leno's late night show. The stupid answers some people give to what should be relatively easy recent civics questions are downright scary.

I still want an answer as to what the topic has to do with obama.

I think the comparison was as minions. Total devotion regardless of merit.

Ferno wrote:I still want an answer as to what the topic has to do with obama.

Because right wingers think that stupid, young people are the ones who voted for Obama, (emphasis on the stupid part), and that all right wingers are always smarter, older and wiser than that and tend to vote for much better candidates, like um.... "cough".... Nixon and Dubya.

Nobody here but us centrists!

tunnelcat wrote:

Ferno wrote:I still want an answer as to what the topic has to do with obama.

Because right wingers think that stupid, young people are the ones who voted for Obama, (emphasis on the stupid part), and that all right wingers are always smarter, older and wiser than that and tend to vote for much better candidates, like um.... "cough".... Nixon and Dubya.

So do all the stupid young people who voted for Obama balance out all the stupid old rednecks who voted for McCain/Romney?

The funny thing is that Nixon would have gone down as a damn good president, if he hadn't been so psychotically paranoid.

Top Gun wrote:..
So do all the stupid young people who voted for Obama balance out all the stupid old rednecks who voted for McCain/Romney? ....

Obama got more votes so you do the math...

That's only applicable if we're assuming that both theoretical (i.e. fictional) groups are the only ones who voted for either candidate. There is a generally well-informed middle out there, however hard it may be to find at times.

I voted for Obama mainly because of Romney's religious beliefs. Of course, everyone here knows I believe in one true God, but Romney is way on the fringe, actually thinking he himself will one day be a God. That makes me think he would have been a great deal more inflexible and intolerant than a mere humanist. I think if not for that, Romney could have won. That's the only reason I voted for Obama, but it's not like we had more than 2 to choose from anyways . I think a slow and well thought-out recovery was what was warranted, and Romney may have moved too fast too soon.

Top Gun wrote:That's only applicable if we're assuming that both theoretical (i.e. fictional) groups are the only ones who voted for either candidate. There is a generally well-informed middle out there, however hard it may be to find at times.

Well my answer was more than a little tongue in cheek but I'd say it was certainly as valid as the premise the question was built on.

flip wrote:I voted for Obama mainly because of Romney's religious beliefs. Of course, everyone here knows I believe in one true God, but Romney is way on the fringe, actually thinking he himself will one day be a God. That makes me think he would have been a great deal more inflexible and intolerant than a mere humanist. I think if not for that, Romney could have won. That's the only reason I voted for Obama, but it's not like we had more than 2 to choose from anyways . I think a slow and well thought-out recovery was what was warranted, and Romney may have moved too fast too soon.

You dismissed the guy you interpreted to be pursuing divine ascension based probably only on a very literal take on some of his religions documentation, not on the man. Imagine a christian in today's political arena doing that....irony much?

And instead you voted for a guy who is ruling as King of Vengeance and there was no mistaking that was who he was going to be....

No, I don't see it that way, but I have dealt with a great deal of religious types throughout my life. They are some of the most easily led and indoctrinated while at the very same time unyielding and opinionated. Not very diplomatic people, more the my way or the highway types. As far as Obama, I don't believe him to be the great transgressor a lot of people make him out to be. Take the Obama movie for instance. I watched it well after most people I know did, but we definitely came away with 2 different impressions. I heard a lot of stuff from people who actually watched the movie, that I did not see at all. Romney will probably win this next go around anyways, as you can almost be sure he will run this next election. I'd still rather a lame duck than a golden goose anyday

Here's the first golden boy:

Woodrow Wilson is depicted on the Series 1934 $100,000 Gold Certificate. It is the highest denomination printed for all Federal paper money. The $100,000 Gold Certs were intended for use in fiscal channels only and not general circulation. The notes are strictly government property and are not legal to own. From time to time the notes can be seen in BEP exhibits at larger coin or currency shows