WWTBAM Bored

"Donald Trump Can Suck My...."

Shirt spotted at the Minnesota State Fair on Tuesday being worn by a real winner. I wonder how his career is going with the stretched earlobes and all.

Nice shirt to wear to a family friendly event, Dude. How long since your last bong hit?

Spock wrote:"Donald Trump Can Suck My...."

Shirt spotted at the Minnesota State Fair on Tuesday being worn by a real winner. I wonder how his career is going with the stretched earlobes and all.

Nice shirt to wear to a family friendly event, Dude. How long since your last bong hit?

I went to the woman's march in the Washington State Capital several months ago. The number of people holding signs with sentiments even more offensive than that was amazing. Many of these signs were mass produced. But we, who are trying to be reasonable about our opposition to the current administration are the 'haters'. Go figure.

As opposed to, say, this tee shirt:



There's plenty more where that came from:

http://www.craveonline.com/mandatory/10 ... n-t-shirts

silverscreenselect wrote:As opposed to, say, this tee shirt:



There's plenty more where that came from:

http://www.craveonline.com/mandatory/10 ... n-t-shirts

Yeah, I've seen these all over the place. (not)
Fuck trump signs are so ubiquitous they don't even bother to hide them on network tv.

PS, it took me a couple minutes to even understand what it implied..... What a poor excuse for a racist I am.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
PS, it took me a couple minutes to even understand what it implied..... What a poor excuse for a racist I am.

There's a lot worse T-shirts and signs about Obama and Hillary out there, but I didn't have a great deal of time to go hunting this morning. I imagine the proliferation of bumper stickers, t-shirts, and signs like these depends on where you live. People put them on display in areas where the number of like-minded people tend to outnumber those who would take offense (in some cases severe offense).

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
PS, it took me a couple minutes to even understand what it implied..... What a poor excuse for a racist I am.

There's a lot worse T-shirts and signs about Obama and Hillary out there, but I didn't have a great deal of time to go hunting this morning. I imagine the proliferation of bumper stickers, t-shirts, and signs like these depends on where you live. People put them on display in areas where the number of like-minded people tend to outnumber those who would take offense (in some cases severe offense).

Liberal invective beats out conservative invective every time. That's what liberals do.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Liberal invective beats out conservative invective every time. That's what liberals do.

For the last eight years, right wingers have unleashed the most vulgar sorts of racist and sexist invective against Obama and Hillary that goes way beyond anything that's been leveled at Trump, Bush, or the various other Republican candidates. The only reason it's slacked off somewhat is because Obama is out of office and Hillary lost the election. If she were President, you'd see a lot of crap that that goes way past anything liberals have said about Trump. This wasn't caused by any disagreement about politics; it's sheer hatred, much of it fueled by racism and sexism.

And let's not forget that right wingers have a role model who openly brags about what he's done with women in the past.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Liberal invective beats out conservative invective every time. That's what liberals do.

For the last eight years, right wingers have unleashed the most vulgar sorts of racist and sexist invective against Obama and Hillary that goes way beyond anything that's been leveled at Trump, Bush, or the various other Republican candidates. The only reason it's slacked off somewhat is because Obama is out of office and Hillary lost the election. If she were President, you'd see a lot of crap that that goes way past anything liberals have said about Trump. This wasn't caused by any disagreement about politics; it's sheer hatred, much of it fueled by racism and sexism.

And let's not forget that right wingers have a role model who openly brags about what he's done with women in the past.

Both examples are disgusting, but if you believe the anti-Obama invective, as ridiculous as it was, reached anywhere near the levels of anti-Trump sewage, you are seriously delusional and need help. Seriously.
There are abysmally horrible people in the world, on both ends of the political spectrum, but the stage, and the complicity, granted the anti-Trump idiots is completely unprecedented in our history.

This wasn't caused by any disagreement about politics; it's sheer hatred, much of it fueled by racism and sexism.

When are you going to get this through to your brain... Trump was elected partly, maybe mainly, because good, hardworking people who mind their own business are sick to death of being called racist, sexist, haters, what-have-you by self-righteous bigots like you. I know I am sick and tired of it. 99% of people in this country do not give a shit what color a person's skin is. But people like you hone in on the 1% and make them seem important. And you fan the ember of REAL racism in hopes it gives you an issue that people will be outraged about. Witness the SPLC. Once upon a time, they were legitimate organization with a righteous cause. Now they are no different than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They are in it for the money.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-p ... -entities/

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

This wasn't caused by any disagreement about politics; it's sheer hatred, much of it fueled by racism and sexism.

When are you going to get this through to your brain... Trump was elected partly, maybe mainly, because good, hardworking people who mind their own business are sick to death of being called racist, sexist, haters, what-have-you by self-righteous bigots like you. I know I am sick and tired of it. 99% of people in this country do not give a shit what color a person's skin is. But people like you hone in on the 1% and make them seem important. And you fan the ember of REAL racism in hopes it gives you an issue that people will be outraged about. Witness the SPLC. Once upon a time, they were a legitimate organization with a righteous cause. Now they are no different than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They are in it for the money.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-p ... -entities/

Please explain why people who don't want to be thought of as racist, sexist, haters voted for a racist, sexist, hater.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

This wasn't caused by any disagreement about politics; it's sheer hatred, much of it fueled by racism and sexism.

When are you going to get this through to your brain... Trump was elected partly, maybe mainly, because good, hardworking people who mind their own business are sick to death of being called racist, sexist, haters, what-have-you by self-righteous bigots like you. I know I am sick and tired of it. 99% of people in this country do not give a shit what color a person's skin is. But people like you hone in on the 1% and make them seem important. And you fan the ember of REAL racism in hopes it gives you an issue that people will be outraged about. Witness the SPLC. Once upon a time, they were a legitimate organization with a righteous cause. Now they are no different than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They are in it for the money.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-p ... -entities/

Please explain why people who don't want to be thought of as racist, sexist, haters voted for a racist, sexist, hater.

Who tells you that trump is any of those things? Why do you unquestionably believe it?

Bob Juch wrote: Please explain why people who don't want to be thought of as racist, sexist, haters voted for a racist, sexist, hater.

I can not explain why you voted how you did in 2012. Don't you know?

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

This wasn't caused by any disagreement about politics; it's sheer hatred, much of it fueled by racism and sexism.

When are you going to get this through to your brain... Trump was elected partly, maybe mainly, because good, hardworking people who mind their own business are sick to death of being called racist, sexist, haters, what-have-you by self-righteous bigots like you. I know I am sick and tired of it. 99% of people in this country do not give a shit what color a person's skin is. But people like you hone in on the 1% and make them seem important. And you fan the ember of REAL racism in hopes it gives you an issue that people will be outraged about. Witness the SPLC. Once upon a time, they were a legitimate organization with a righteous cause. Now they are no different than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They are in it for the money.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-p ... -entities/

Please explain why people who don't want to be thought of as racist, sexist, haters voted for a racist, sexist, hater.

Just to give you posting fodder cause we're givers.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Please explain why people who don't want to be thought of as racist, sexist, haters voted for a racist, sexist, hater.

Who tells you that trump is any of those things? Why do you unquestionably believe it?

Donald Trump does, if you care to listen to him and not have Sean Hannity act as your interpreter of what Trump really means when he says various racist, sexist things.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
When are you going to get this through to your brain... Trump was elected partly, maybe mainly, because good, hardworking people who mind their own business are sick to death of being called racist, sexist, haters, what-have-you by self-righteous bigots like you. I know I am sick and tired of it. 99% of people in this country do not give a shit what color a person's skin is. But people like you hone in on the 1% and make them seem important. And you fan the ember of REAL racism in hopes it gives you an issue that people will be outraged about. Witness the SPLC. Once upon a time, they were a legitimate organization with a righteous cause. Now they are no different than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They are in it for the money.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-p ... -entities/

Please explain why people who don't want to be thought of as racist, sexist, haters voted for a racist, sexist, hater.

Who tells you that trump is any of those things? Why do you unquestionably believe it?

He tells me that. I don't believe his words but I believe his actions.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Please explain why people who don't want to be thought of as racist, sexist, haters voted for a racist, sexist, hater.

I can not explain why you voted how you did in 2012. Don't you know?

Yes, I do.

Bless his heart.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Witness the SPLC. Once upon a time, they were legitimate organization with a righteous cause. Now they are no different than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They are in it for the money.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-p ... -entities/

Well, if you look at someone who is objective and not the Washington Free Beacon, the SPLC does fairly well. According to Charity Navigator, they have an 86% or B rating, not the best but far from the worst. 65% of the money they raise goes to their various programs. They also got a 97% on accountability and transparency

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. ... orgid=4482

Some comparisons:

American Red Cross: 83% rating; 90% of money raised goes to programs ($1.6 billion in net assets by the way)
American Cancer Society: 72% rating; 60% of money goes to programs ($1.2 billion in net assets)
Clinton Foundation: 94% rating; 86% goes to programs ($406 million in net assets)
Planned Parenthood: 90% rating; 75% of money goes to programs ($273 million net assets)

And here are some conservative foundations:

Judicial Watch: 75% rating; 56% of money raised goes to programs ($47 million in net assets)
American Center for Law and Justice: 59% rating; 77% of money raised goes to programs ($157 million net assets)
Americans for Prosperity: 75% rating; 72% of money raised goes to programs ($2.9 billion net assets)

By the way, many religious charities, including the Salvation Army aren't listed because they are exempt from IRS filing requirements that Charity Navigator uses to compile its ratings.

So, before you get on your high horse about how awful the SPLC is, you might look at a source that's a bit more objective than the Free Beacon. Flock, for someone who claims to want to be as educated as possible about all points of view, you inevitably wind up citing these right wing hatchet job sources as the justification for your outrage about liberals.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

This wasn't caused by any disagreement about politics; it's sheer hatred, much of it fueled by racism and sexism.

When are you going to get this through to your brain... Trump was elected partly, maybe mainly, because good, hardworking people who mind their own business are sick to death of being called racist, sexist, haters, what-have-you by self-righteous bigots like you. I know I am sick and tired of it. 99% of people in this country do not give a shit what color a person's skin is. But people like you hone in on the 1% and make them seem important. And you fan the ember of REAL racism in hopes it gives you an issue that people will be outraged about. Witness the SPLC. Once upon a time, they were legitimate organization with a righteous cause. Now they are no different than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They are in it for the money.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-p ... -entities/

Well, if you look at someone who is objective and not the Washington Free Beacon, the SPLC does fairly well. According to Charity Navigator, they have an 86% or B rating, not the best but far from the worst. 65% of the money they raise goes to their various programs. They also got a 97% on accountability and transparency

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. ... orgid=4482

Some comparisons:

American Red Cross: 83% rating; 90% of money raised goes to programs ($1.6 billion in net assets by the way)
American Cancer Society: 72% rating; 60% of money goes to programs ($1.2 billion in net assets)
Clinton Foundation: 94% rating; 86% goes to programs ($406 million in net assets)
Planned Parenthood: 90% rating; 75% of money goes to programs ($273 million net assets)

And here are some conservative foundations:

Judicial Watch: 75% rating; 56% of money raised goes to programs ($47 million in net assets)
American Center for Law and Justice: 59% rating; 77% of money raised goes to programs ($157 million net assets)
Americans for Prosperity: 75% rating; 72% of money raised goes to programs ($2.9 billion net assets)

By the way, many religious charities, including the Salvation Army aren't listed because they are exempt from IRS filing requirements that Charity Navigator uses to compile its ratings.

So, before you get on your high horse about how awful the SPLC is, you might look at a source that's a bit more objective than the Free Beacon. Flock, for someone who claims to want to be as educated as possible about all points of view, you inevitably wind up citing these right wing hatchet job sources as the justification for your outrage about liberals.

Some of those statistics are suspect. When I get some sleep I'll refute a couple.

That's funny, I didn't see anything in those articles about the SPLC, which was the target of Flock's indignation.

My point was that the SPLC wasn't some scam outfit looking to launder money offshore as the Beacon article implied. Their figures are in line with other charities and stack up favorably against some well known conservative charities.

And the "suspect" statistics come from IRS filings.

From the Charity Navigator website as to how they rate charities:

We rate charities by evaluating two areas of performance: Financial Health and Accountability & Transparency. Our ratings show donors how efficiently we believe a charity will use their support today, how well it has sustained its programs and services over time, and their level of commitment to being accountable and transparent. We provide these ratings so that donors can make intelligent giving decisions, and so that the philanthropic community can more effectively monitor itself.


Financial Health
We base our evaluations on the financial information each charity provides in its informational tax return, the IRS Form 990. We use that information to analyze a charity’s financial performance in seven key areas that assess its financial efficiency and financial capacity, in relation to its cause area. We then assign the charity a score ranging from zero to ten in all seven performance metrics, as well as a rating for its overall Financial Health.

Accountability & Transparency
To evaluate an organization’s Accountability & Transparency, we utilize two sources: information available on the organization’s 990 and information collected from a review of the charity’s website. We use that information to score an organization on seventeen metrics that assess whether it follows best practices of governance and ethics, and whether it makes it easy for donors to find critical information about the organization. We then assign a rating for the organization’s overall Accountability & Transparency.

silverscreenselect wrote:That's funny, I didn't see anything in those articles about the SPLC, which was the target of Flock's indignation.

My point was that the SPLC wasn't some scam outfit looking to launder money offshore as the Beacon article implied. Their figures are in line with other charities and stack up favorably against some well known conservative charities.

And the "suspect" statistics come from IRS filings.

From the Charity Navigator website as to how they rate charities:

We rate charities by evaluating two areas of performance: Financial Health and Accountability & Transparency. Our ratings show donors how efficiently we believe a charity will use their support today, how well it has sustained its programs and services over time, and their level of commitment to being accountable and transparent. We provide these ratings so that donors can make intelligent giving decisions, and so that the philanthropic community can more effectively monitor itself.


Financial Health
We base our evaluations on the financial information each charity provides in its informational tax return, the IRS Form 990. We use that information to analyze a charity’s financial performance in seven key areas that assess its financial efficiency and financial capacity, in relation to its cause area. We then assign the charity a score ranging from zero to ten in all seven performance metrics, as well as a rating for its overall Financial Health.

Accountability & Transparency
To evaluate an organization’s Accountability & Transparency, we utilize two sources: information available on the organization’s 990 and information collected from a review of the charity’s website. We use that information to score an organization on seventeen metrics that assess whether it follows best practices of governance and ethics, and whether it makes it easy for donors to find critical information about the organization. We then assign a rating for the organization’s overall Accountability & Transparency.

You cited many other charities, too. So?

Beebs52 wrote:You cited many other charities, too. So?

The reason I cited other charities was to show that SPLC was roughly comparable to a number of other well known charities (and had a better rating than several conservative charitable organizations). It's not a "they're in it for the money" organization as Flock and the Beacon article stated. Unless you feel that the American Red Cross and the American Cancer Society are "in it for the money."