MiddleMan's comment history

MiddleMan said...

Lol @ Gaussian.

August 4, 2014 at 12:42 p.m.
MiddleMan said...

Haha, I see the closed-minded comment had the desired effect. Liberals are so fond of throwing around that term automatically whenever someone doesn't agree with them. It couldn't possibly simply be a difference of opinion and outlook, no sir, it's a result of closed-mindedness.

That being said, I do not think you're closed-minded in general, but on the subject of why so many people think Obama is an atrocious excuse for a president, you're clearly close-minded, because you automatically label those people as racists despite the fact that there are plenty of reasons to dislike him that have nothing to do with race. Some of them are the very same things that liberals (rightfully so) bashed Bush over.

August 4, 2014 at 11:07 a.m.
MiddleMan said...

Zableed, good to know. Reading your initial comment, I never got the impression that you didn't know who it was, and was perplexed when I read alprova's comment. Apparently alprova thinks that referencing a person's resemblence to someone else is automatic proof that one doesn't know who it really is.

I imagine having even the most benign conversation with him in person would be an extremely frustrating experience.

August 4, 2014 at 10:51 a.m.
MiddleMan said...

conservative said...

"Well, thanks to him (alprova) only about four to five consistently comment here any longer."

Speaking for myself, I can honestly say conservative is right on the money. I can only subject myself to the mindless, illogical rantings of the close-minded hypocrites for so long before I decide to give myself a break.

August 4, 2014 at 10:34 a.m.
MiddleMan said...

You want racism? Take a gander at Michelle. Now that's a racist, and you can't deny that without showing yourself to be a hypocrite (unless of course, you would have no issue with a white first lady telling White America to wake up, in which case you wouldn't be a hypocrite, not for that reason anyway).

I know there's no chance you would ever publicly admit it, but deep down you know that if Bush (or any non-democratic president) had done all of the same things Obama had done, your head would have exploded long ago in anger at what a horrible president we had in office. People (both republicans and democrats) who decide whether or not they agree with a president's actions based on the party they belong to are the biggest problem this country faces today. I'm sure you'll act incredulous and deny it, but we all know it's true; you have shown your hypocritical colors far too many times for you to ever convince anyone otherwise.

August 4, 2014 at 10:29 a.m.
MiddleMan said...

In response to zableedofisterix (correctly) labeling this cartoon as the race card, and his comment that (Zimmerman) looks like a light-skinned version of Shaq, Alprova wrote:

"Z-man, you're totally not getting it, which is not unusual for you. The man in the back is supposed to resemble George Zimmerman, not a black person.

President Barack Obama is very much a black person, which I know you are fully aware of, because the President is the bane of your existence, most likely due his skin color.

You give yourself away every time when you see what you see when what is being actually conveyed is quite the opposite.

More often than not, you type before your brain fully engages."

I always find it both amusing and truly sad when people accuse others of "not getting it", when they themselves obviously do not get it.

  1. You (Alprova) jumped to a conclusion when you assumed that Z's comment on the resemblance to a light-skinned Shaq meant that he didn't realize who the character actually was supposed to be. Considering that the Zimmerman-Martin incident was national news for so long, especially what Martin was wearing/holding (which is clearly shown in the comic), my guess is that he figured it was so obvious who the person in the cartoon was supposed to represent that he could make a comment about the resemblance to someone else without having to state that he knew it was obviously actually Zimmerman, and not a black person.

His comment that this cartoon is just another race card is clear evidence of the fact that he, at the very least, realized that the person in the back was not a black person. If he did think he was black, why would he have mentioned the race card in regards to a cartoon that featured a black man wanting to impeach another black man? Nobody claims the race card is being played when the subject is a black man doing something to another black man. Clearly, you're the one who doesn't get it.

  1. There has never been a clearer example of the race card. Every bleeding heart libby just couldn't fathom the possibility that Zimmerman followed Martin for any reason other than racism. In exactly the same manner, the bleeding hearts just cannot bring themselves to understand (or even consider) the fact that the vast majority of people who want to impeach Obama are motivated by many factors, none of them being race-related (I won't deny that there does exist a relatively small minority whose main reason for wanting him impeached is race driven).

The simple fact that you and so many others immediately concluded "racism" after a non-black man followed a black man, and after non-black people want to impeach a black president, just shows how either racist, simple-minded, or close-minded you and those others are. When you don't go around seeing everything through racist-tinted glasses, you're then able to see and consider the possibility that things do happen, even unfortunate things, for reasons other than racism.

August 4, 2014 at 10:28 a.m.
MiddleMan said...

Personally, conservative comes across as someone who isn't interested in helping someone who wants everything given to him or herself. The Bible never commands anyone to support anyone else who refuses to at least try to parlay that support into bettering themselves.

January 8, 2014 at 1:25 p.m.
MiddleMan said...

Oh, and for all the libs freely quoting the Bible in your apples-to-oranges comparison (No one is saying the poor shouldn't be helped. They're/we're saying the people who refuse to help themselves shouldn't be given handouts. If you can't comprehend that fine line, you should probably...no, you should DEFINITELY seek further education), if you have ever cried against the use of anything Biblical in any other discussion regarding government, you are the pure definition of a hypocrite.

January 8, 2014 at 1:21 p.m.
MiddleMan said...

InquiringMind, have you ever heard the adage "Give a man fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."? Maybe you think that if we give people fish(money) for long enough, then they'll eventually teach themselves to fish(work)?

It's not poor people anyone has a problem with. It's lazy people who refuse to work, and instead game the system (aka steal from those who earn for a living). Despite what you might say, based on a lack of witnessing it, it does happen, and quite often. I used to work a job that put me into contact with a significant amount of these people on a daily basis, and they're actually quite happy to admit that what they're doing.

I (and others like me, I'm sure) didn't just one day wake up and think "Hey, I bet a bunch of people are gaming the system." I know a bunch of people are gaming the system, because I've witnessed it.

January 8, 2014 at 1:10 p.m.
MiddleMan said...

Plain Truth said: "^^^wonder how many "names" Chet has? HAHAHAHA"

He has but one name. His grammar skills are so atrocious, they are his own identifier.

June 26, 2013 at 10:03 a.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.