HOME | DD
BluePhoenixx β Che Meme
Published: 2012-07-10 01:42:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 7838; Favourites: 75; Downloads: 609
Redirect to original
Description
This is the prime example of liberal ignorance.Related content
Comments: 343
this guy was sick who ever says otherwise is either sick as well, ignorant, or just plan stupid
π: 0 β©: 2
You'll get no argument out of me. I'm leaning more towards ignorance though. That seems to be the general problem with those people anyways.
π: 0 β©: 0
*plain
π: 0 β©: 0
If this is true, then Che should be an idol of the Republican party
π: 0 β©: 1
If you believe that, you're a fool.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well the Republicans are the party of the amazing shrining tent. To find a racist, sexist or bigoted Republican, you just have to shut your eyes, put your finger on a random list of republicans and nine times out of ten your finger will land on a racist, sexist bigot.
π: 0 β©: 1
Again, if you actually believe that, you're a fool. Sure, there are a number of sexists, bigots, and racists on the right, but there are just as many on the left, if not more. Don't believe me? Find a conservative black woman and you will hear the most vile, racist, sexist, and bigoted remarks that you've ever heard. You liberals project your own racism, sexism, and bigotry on everyone else that disagrees with you. I've said this a number of times, but if there's one word I could use to describe liberals, it would be 'hypocrite.'
π: 0 β©: 2
Thank you thank you 
π: 0 β©: 0
So far the right has laid a monopoly on racism, sexism and bigotry. It wasn't the democrats who tried to pass a bill for an invasive transvaginal prove for women, and it wasn't the democrats who blocked time and time again bills to provide women with cheaper contraceptives. And it wasn't democrats who said that slavery was in reality a good thing for blacks. Nor was it democrats who called the President a skinny ghetto crackhead.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're joking right? A monopoly on racism, sexism, and bigotry? You actually believe this? How brainwashed are you? Seriously... I can't believe there are people out there as ignorant as you are. How can you possibly believe such bull shit? Let me break down the facts for you into categories.
Racism:
It was the Democrats who fought the Republicans to keep slavery. It was the Democrats who enacted the Jim Crow laws. It was the Democrats who founded and supported the KKK. It was the Democrats who instituted "separate but equal." Woodrow Wilson segregated federal buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations. It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said, "segregation forever." It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools. It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham. It was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. - and Grand Kleagle Byrd (KKK leader). It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party. It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house nigger." It was Democrats who called Condi Rice - who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats - an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs. It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantation. It's the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations. (And no, the Dixiecrats didn't join the Republican Party - most of them remained Democrats and only recently did the south start voting Republican.)
What you have is a pitiful list of unfortunate things idiots have said. I just gave you a list of actions from the real racists. For each racist thing a Republican has said, I could easily give you 10 examples of a racist Democrat. Again, just take a look at what the "tolerant" left has to say about any republican woman or black person.
Sexism:
Democrat John Walsh believes that doing laundry is a woman's job by becoming "an honorary girl" by folding laundry in a TV commercial aimed at women. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz made a sexist fool out of herself when she called the females speakers at the Republican National Convention "shiny packages." Then of course we have the Democrat God, Bill Clinton, who is accused of rape, has settled a sexual assault claim, still has multiple sexual assault claims, and is predator of young interns while in the White House. Or how about the Democrat stooge, Bill Maher, who called Sarah Palin a "cunt" and every other prominent Democrat who has said sexist, disgusting things about Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and every other female conservative. And so on and so on and so on.
Now, what you have is a bunch of bull shit the Democrats are calling sexist because that's what Democrats do. Blocking "cheaper contraceptives" isn't sexist. Nobody gives a shit about women getting contraceptives. They can buy truck loads if they want. The key word is "THEY"... As in, nobody should HAVE to buy their contraceptives for them especially if they object to contraceptives morally. For that matter, nobody has the right to anything from anybody. That's not sexist, that's common sense. If they can't afford it, they can go to PP or Walmart and get it for next to nothing if not free (as is the case for PP).
Bigotry:
Everything I've already listed are examples of Democrats being bigots, but let me give you a few more examples. Democrat President Roosevelt headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century β the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court; Jimmy Byrnes and Hugo Black (both Democrats). Speaking of Hugo Black, he was a member of the KKK and has a lengthy history of hate group activism. Robert Byrd (Democrat of course) was also a member of the KKK and the list of Klansmen in the Democrat party goes on and on and on. Jesse Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City βHymietown.β Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose. Democrats were always opposed to the Civil Rights movements. And last, but not least, You. You are a bigot if I have ever seen one. Your comment that I am responding to is one of the most bigoted comments I have read in a long, long time.
Pull your head out of your ass and come back to reality. Like I said, Republicans aren't perfect, but the fact that you obviously believe that Democrats aren't racist, sexist, or bigoted at all proves that you are un uneducated fool who lives in a bubble of liberal bull shit. Now, pipe the fuck down and go educate yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
Amen. Β AndΒ wow, I learned alot just by reading that.Β 
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't want to sound stupid, but who is Che?
π: 0 β©: 1
Ernesto "Che" Guevara was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary and more recently adopted as a leftist symbol of freedom and antiestablishment and whatever else is the current fad. You might have seen the ubiquitous shirts and bumper stickers... unless you live under a rock
Here's the Wiki: [link]
Here's an article about the things you don't normally hear : [link]
In short, Che isn't the man many who wear his shirts romanticize him as. But that's what happens when you care more about what people think of you than the truth.
π: 0 β©: 1
Lol, I did see a shirt at Spencer's ( a famous store where I live, it's full of sex addicts
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, we've got a number of Spencer's where I live as well. It's a pretty big company. At any rate, at least they are lumping him in with the right kind of people haha.
π: 0 β©: 1
One time I saw an Obama punching bag at Spencer's.
π: 0 β©: 1
Haha that would be a good way to relieve frustrations when you're going through all of your health care garbage
π: 0 β©: 0
Also I am curious about Che supposedly killing homosexuals if he did how many and what were their names? I am aware that Castro started the UMAP concentration camps but as for Che I stand by my original argument.
π: 0 β©: 0
Tamayao for an example was a Black Cuban revolutionary who fought alongside Guevara and then became his body guard abroad and personal escort. He later ended up serving in the Cuban government. He even became a Colonel for the Cuban Ministry of the internal. Harry Villegas was another Afro Cuban who also served in the Revolutionary government that served with Che. And Villegas ended up serving as a Brigidier general for the Cuban army.
π: 0 β©: 0
RE:Thats always the excuse he changed!! Well people over time actually do change. Almost everyone has said stupid things in the past that they regret.
π: 0 β©: 0
Che actuallly condemned the United States on how it treated its black community plus there were blacks who did fight with Che not to mention he also had a black body guard and Guevara mainly executed Batista officials who were responsible for murder themselves. Che also mainly executed spies enemy combatants and also a number of deserters. In the end it was mostly Castro who killed political innocent political opponets. I do not agree with Che and about the launching of Soviet missiles off of the coast. But he did do more good then bad.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do not agree with Che and about the wanting of* launching Soviet missiles off of the coast. But he did do more good then bad in my opinion.
π: 0 β©: 0
To suggest Che hated blacks is hilarious. That's almost the equivalent of implying Hitler loved gypsies.
Also, since when did the right give a shit about blacks, gays, or books anyway? Isn't education a leftist conspiracy? Santorum believes as much: [link]
Besides, Che hated liberalism and thought liberals were naive.
π: 0 β©: 1
Let me correct your ignorance with his own words.
βThe black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.β
Here's another for good measure.
βThe blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese.β
A better question is, when have the left ever given a shit about blacks? The KKK was a product of the Democrats. Margret Sanger, the patron saint of the left, was a racist eugenist. Blacks are kept down by liberal policies that make it easy to stay unemployed and sucking on the EBT. The thing is, people who claim racism are the true racist and liberals make a career out of calling others racist.
Go educate yourself. You look like a fool.
π: 0 β©: 1
He wrote that when he was little more than a stupid kid, and quickly renounced his youthful racism when he actually met black people. He campaigned hard and managed to get interracial schooling for Cuban children before most states in the US did, back when the racist Jim Crow laws still dominated. He repeatedly denounced racism and colonialism and fraternised with Malcolm X, Patrice Lumumba and many of the greatest black leaders, most of whom he idolised. To take some irrelevant quote out of context like that achieves nothing - compare that to some random IN context quote by hardline reactionary scum like Pat Buchanan or Ann Coulter...
The Democrats used to be a racist, rightist party, they supported slavery and so on. I don't care about them, and am not a liberal but it has to be said that they became slightly more progressive as the 20th century wore on. Pointing out that the KKK was composed of many Democratic members in the 1920s doesn't really prove much, since there has been a huge ideological shift between the 1920s and now for both parties. Margaret Sanger was the patron saint of nothing except birth control - but just because birth control is now seen as progressive, it doesn't mean she is, or was. As for the "Welfare keeps the poor poor" argument, that misconstrues welfare as some kind of huge royalty check that stops people having to work. Welfare for the typical claimant amounts to practically nothing.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's always the excuse, "well he didn't really mean it! He changed!" Even if that was true, the point of the picture still remains. He did burn books. He did ban music. He did hate blacks. He did murder gays. Period.
If you're not a liberal, then what would you consider yourself. I don't know how many times I have heard that from people like you in the past week. If you are going to act like a liberal, talk like a liberal, have the same beliefs as a liberal, you are a liberal. Own up to it rather than hiding from it.
Pretending that there was a huge ideological shift is just a lie you guys need to tell yourselves to justify their actions and perpetuate the lie that Republicans and conservatives are racist. If anything, everyone progressed passed the racist stage. If you actually did your homework, you would see that Republicans have ALWAYS been on the correct side of this racism issue. All of the racist bills and laws passed such as the Jim Crow laws were designed and passed by Democrats. All of the civil rights bills and laws were passed by Republicans and when the Republicans didn't have the majority to pass the bills, they were still 80-90% in favor of them while Democrats were consistently only around 60% in favor. Don't believe me? Look at the voting records.
"Margaret Sanger was the patron saint of nothing except birth control..."
You have that half right. She really is the patron saint of nothing. She is a racist piece of white trash who started Planned Parenthood as a tool of eugenics. This shouldn't be news to you. Nonetheless, she's still practically worshipped on the left.
"...but just because birth control is now seen as progressive, it doesn't mean she is, or was."
Birth control isn't seen as progressive by anyone other than "progressives". Abortion is what conservatives disagree with, not birth control, and abortion is "progressive." To ignorantly say that Sanger isn't a progressive is ludicris as she is the labeled as one of the "great" women of the "progressive era"... Stop bull shitting yourself.
"As for the 'Welfare keeps the poor poor' argument, that misconstrues welfare as some kind of huge royalty check that stops people having to work. Welfare for the typical claimant amounts to practically nothing."
Nobody is saying that the checks they get are huge and nobody is saying that welfare doesn't ever help anybody. But it certainly does far more harm than good. Welfare does keep the poor poor. You can't argue that. That why you didn't. It enables people to sit on their ass and not look for a job. I speak from seeing it in action after growing up in the slums of LA and more recently seeing how it enables my super liberal cousin to not get a job. He came over to visit and told me that he was getting 2 grand a week from welfare. He has stopped looking for a job because none of the jobs available in his college town to him will give him 2 grand a month. THAT'S $2000 FOR NOTHING. Of course he isn't going to find a job and actually have to work for it when he can just get it sitting on his couch doing nothing. Welfare doesn't help people become better and become successful, it keeps people down and it keeps them lazy.
π: 0 β©: 0
Heβs the symbol of Communism, yet heβs sold on T-shirts made in third world sweatshops. In other words, itβs Communism profiting from Capitalism.
π: 0 β©: 2
Haha exactly well said friend!
π: 0 β©: 1
ERRRRR You really think Communism profits from Capitalism? Is that even possible? Where do all those tshirts get sold? How many people in third would countries do you think own a Che tshirt? Exactly. Che has made hundreds of mullions of dollars for capitalism, he would have been sickened by the irony. To suggest he somehow made money for communism is out and out lying.
π: 0 β©: 2
ERRRR you need to work on your reading comprehension. He said that this is, "Communism profiting from Capitalism" not Che "ma[king] money for communism..." By twisting his words, it is you who is "out and out lying." You are intellectually dishonest. I'm using the word, 'intellectual' very loosely in your situation.
A symbol of Communism and Marxism (Che) is unwittingly being advertised through Capitalistic means by the ignorant liberals buying shirts and bumper stickers with his face on them. If you don't understand this basic point, you are beyond help and reason.
π: 0 β©: 1
What profits has Communism made from Capitalism though? Given that in principle, Communism doesn't make profits (on an international market) that's if nothing else logically redundant. Except in the impossibly abstract sense of Che's image garnering goodwill amongst people in capitalist nations, but that's hardly "profit" is it? Nevertheless I meant it literally. I was straightforwardly correct, and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
In any case, and more to the point, Capitalism is LITERALLY profiting from "Communism" on account of the mass of third world labour propping up capitalist nations.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are trying to perform mental gymnastics in order to keep from admitting that you're wrong. Again, you are being intellectually dishonest... And you're trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about? What a joke.
Are you really too stupid to realize that words have more than one meaning in the English language? Honestly.. Are you really that stupid? Are you not able to comprehend the fact that BlameThe1st's usage of the word "profiting" was LITERALLY correct? And then you basically call him a liar? Never mind the fact that you are trying to peg a separate definition of 'profit' on him when he clearly used the word, "profiting". Communism is LITERALLY profiting from Capitalism when liberal idiots buy Che paraphernalia. Do I really need to give you the definition of the verb, 'profiting'? Do I REALLY need to explain to you the difference between "making a profit" and "profiting from..."? Seriously.. Do I?
You know you lost a debate when you have to argue semantics and try to say that the other person intention was a completely different definition of the word. Don't blame other people for your inept ability to comprehend what you are reading.
Your inability to admit when you are clearly wrong and clearly made a mistake astounds me. This is why you are a fool. You refuse to use your brain and when you're wrong, you can't admit it. In your arrogance you made an idiotic mistake and instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you decided to just keep digging the hole you got yourself into deeper and deeper and filling it with more and more bull shit.
You aren't fooling anyone but yourself at this point, kid. Grow the fuck up.
π: 0 β©: 1
What other connotation could "profit" have when used in close conjunction with "buy"? There's pretty much only the one way to interpret that. To conflate your second definition with the first is just a non sequitur, and totally invalid. "To suggest he somehow made money for communism is out and out lying." That is completely true, unless the person in question was simply ignorant. Given that this is clearly a very ideological stamp you have made, i'm not inclined to that opinion.
Lost a debate over semantics...? You're the only one making this into a semantic debate. The initial context was very unambiguous, it wasn't until you sniped in with a completely separate, irrelevant point that it became semantical. Therefore, your remaining paragraphs of criticism over semantics apply only to you. Literally half of what you just said was utter, utter nonsense, completely unrelated to the discussion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow.. just wow. Keep digging, kid. Apparently I have to spell it out for you. Let me dissect your idiocy line by line.
"What other connotation could 'profit' have when used in close conjunction with 'buy'?"
Now you're just making shit up. First of all, when you use quotation marks, you need to be quoting his exact words. If not, you are misquoting that person. He never once said the word, "buy" let alone in "close conjunction" with "profit." Not once did he use the word, "profit" either. Yet another misquote on your part to create this fiction you are trying to sell because you simply aren't capable of admitting that you're wrong.
Second, this is his exact quote, "In other words, itβs Communism profiting from Capitalism." And this is the definition of the verb 'profiting':
1. To make a gain or profit.
2. To derive advantage; benefit: profiting from the other team's mistakes. See Synonyms at benefit.
3. To be beneficial to.
Take a look at the 2nd and 3rd definition. Communism IS LITERALLY profiting from Capitalism by means of advertisement through the Che image. LITERALLY!
"There's pretty much only the one way to interpret that."
I just barely proved you wrong and showed another "interpretation" than the one you came up with. Just because you can't use your brain to figure out what he's actually saying, that doesn't meant that there is no other way to "interpret" what he said. But just keep proving how close minded you are and your inability to think critically.
"To conflate your second definition with the first is just a non sequitur, and totally invalid."
Actually, it's 100% valid and I will explain why in the next section where I dismantle your next line of bull shit.
"'To suggest he somehow made money for communism is out and out lying.' That is completely true, unless the person in question was simply ignorant.
NOT ONCE did BlameThe1st suggest that Che made any money in his statement. NOT ONCE. You are the one that made that illogical leap. I already pointed that out to you once before. Once again, this is another example of you being intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid. Take your pick.
"Lost a debate over semantics...? You're the only one making this into a semantic debate."
Says the kid that is making the claim that BlameThe1st said that Che made money for communism. Says the kid that is misquoting BlameThe1st multiple times in order to support his illogical interpretation. You are the one arguing semantics here and trying to make it sound like BlameThe1st said something completely different than what he actually said. You have to straight up lie about what he's saying to support your claims.
"The initial context was very unambiguous, it wasn't until you sniped in with a completely separate, irrelevant point that it became semantical. Therefore, your remaining paragraphs of criticism over semantics apply only to you."
You're right, is was unambiguous. You're the one that came up "with a separate, irrelevant point" in the attempt to argue with a point that you don't want to believe. I just got done spelling this out to you. In every sense, BlameThe1st's statement was 100% correct. You were the one that had a problem with comprehending his statement.
"Literally half of what you just said was utter, utter nonsense, completely unrelated to the discussion."
Every single thing I said had to do with either the conversation, your lack of comprehension, your intellectual dishonesty, and your inability to admit when you are wrong. The only reason why you say that it's nonsense is because you can't handle the truth when it is thrown at your face. It's nonsense to you because it proves you wrong. If you had two brain cells to rub together, you would have agreed with BlameThe1st's statement rather than try to come up with an irrelevant argument just for the sake of arguing. Next time you comment, you should try using your brain first. This is why you are a lefty, you refuse to think and admit when you're wrong.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, he's a Communist symbol being sold through Capitalism. The irony of that is bitter and he would indeed be sickened by it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Che didn't hate blacks. That quote is taken out of context.
π: 0 β©: 1
What is the context then?
π: 0 β©: 1
He was referring to their exploitation. here's another quote Che said about blacks:
β"Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who letο»Ώ the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men β how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?"
-Che Guevara
re the "the black is indolent" etc it was in the context of a letter. here's something someone else qrote on that:
"There is a quote from him in his younger days in a letter that he commented a bout Blacks in Brazil being lazy, the quote is often taken out of context, if you read the whole letter he was trying to say that the Europeans are basically taking technological advantage and Blacks out of spite refusing to work, instead need to take some sort of initiative to liberate themselves. He never said that Black people are inherently inferior nor was he talking about all Black people but the situation in one particular nation."
π: 0 β©: 1
This is the full quote you are referring to:
βThe black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.β
Here's another racist remark he made:
βThe blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese.β
That screams racist to me even if that's not how you would choose to see him.
π: 0 β©: 0
Is it really liberals who "love" che?
Or are you just labeling anarchists as liberals to maintain an agenda?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, it's liberals... AND anarchists. I know many many liberals who would never call themselves anarchists that throw on a Che shirt or have a Che bumper sticker. I don't need to "maintain" an agenda. Fortunately when something is true, it "maintains" itself.
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>