Warzone Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack 2022
Fortnite Hacks Cheats Aimbot esp Wallhack 2022
Rust Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack
Apex Legends Hacks Cheats Aimbot ESP 2022
Valorant Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack
R6 Rainbow Six Siege Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack
Karin Uhlich Slanders Opponents

Karin Uhlich Slanders Opponents

With the Tucson City council elections just days away, Karin Uhlich is showing her true feeling towards her constituents.  Rather than standing on the issues and her own voting record, she has now laid the smack-down by calling those who oppose her,  “Tea baggers”.  Not unexpected from the state-run media, but somewhat shocking from my local “enlightened” council-gal.

Right from her website:

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge


  1. Even more interesting is that her blog entry links to a Tucson Weekly story that says some of her recent actions make her look like a “dolt.” Perhaps not the best strategy two weeks before an election.

  2. Todd, her name is spelled “Uhlich” Other than that, good post.

  3. She has posted a followup:


    I say yea!

  4. Thx GOP Boomer Gal. Sorry for the blurry eyes. Post Corrected. I see Karin is now also trying to correct things. I believe that if her opposition had said those things, she’d be having a press conference right now to whine about the “mean evil-spirited” right.

  5. Sorry, but a “movement” that puts front and center pictures of the President with a Hitler mustache doesn’t get to claim slander for a term they originally coined for themselves.

  6. That’s an interesting paper. After you read it papatodd, tell me what your point is. There are numerous examples of the image I’m talking about, but I neglected to also add the references to Stalin and stalinism. I found this on the AZ GOP youtube channel.


    You teabaggers should be more careful about what you call slander and slur.

  7. Just don’t call redistribution “Socialism”! It’s “Change.” If one has a free market, low tax, high employment, strong military nation, then CHANGE means market shut down, high taxes, high UNemployment, and a weak military.

    And how come we aren’t hearing from the Gay lobby about the rhetorical use of a gay sex act to demean politically conservative people? Ya’d think they’d be insulted! Isn’t that broadcasting that Democrats who CLAIM they are tolerant, actually despise their Gay constituents? Using their lifestyle choices as insults? Everyone says conservatives and gays as a philosophy of living life don’t mingle, so what’s with the mixed metaphors?

  8. wanumba – most of the redistribution seems to be going upward, not exactly the definition of socialism.

    Oh, and why do you think it is a gay sex act? I think your a little off on that one.

  9. Oh, and why do you think it is a gay sex act? I think your a little off on that one.
    I didn’t think anything of the sort until the likes of Cooper A and the MSM started beady-eying the camera and intoning, “tea-baggers” and then … it went viral across the internet where he got the term.

    The dangers of using the internet to fact-check?
    So, now that people have been informed of the insult, is any use of it diplomatic or responsible or tolerant or gracious or fair in any way shape or form?

  10. todd Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
    wanumba – most of the redistribution seems to be going upward, not exactly the definition of socialism.
    Indeed, it appears that redistribution is making the likes of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros even richer than they already are. Soros bragged that he’d done very well this year – as millions of Americans lost work.
    A lot of people around these Arizona parts are going out of business, out of work and are scared to death.
    But Socialism always talks helping the little guy, but redirects wealth thru government bureaucrats who take their cuts. Government Office in Third World countries is the meanas to wealth, not business. That’s whay staying in government office is so cut-throat (literally). In America, traditionally it was the businessman who was on the track to enrichment, not public servants. The Democrat Party is poised to change that, making aquisition of great wealth only possible via government connections. Classic case: Bill Clinton is now worth millions, and has never produced a thing, never ran a business. Obama, the so-called “community organizer,” owns a million-dollar home.

  11. wanumba – i realize it is a sex act, just not a ‘gay’ one.

    I also think your history is a little off. Public service in terms of being a high-ranking elected official has always been a road to enrichment and being well connected to government has always paid off in the US. I am not sure what idyllic America you are imagining but it is certainly never one that existed.

    Also, so as I understand it, your problem with socialism is that rich people get made richer under it? And this is different than capitalism in what way exactly?

  12. while appreciate the stron debate here, let us remember that the post was about Karin’s disparaginf remarks. Bottom line; Bad behavior if you are a “public servant”.
    Todd, while you ar ecorrect that the rich get richer under both capitalism and socialism. The differnce is with capitalism thore who are not rich have a chance to get rich. ZERO chance under socialism!!!! America has create dmore millionaisre and billionasires than any other country in the history of the world. Why do you think so many people risk life and limb to get here? YOu do not see hoards of folk trying to get to some socialist country. While there are many poor in America, through hard work, persistance and guts, you can still make itr in America, if you are willing to get your hands dirty. Problem is , most people here are not willing to get a little grit under their fingernails.

  13. todd Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
    wanumba – i realize it is a sex act, just not a ‘gay’ one.
    So, we assume you would counsel people to apologize and refrain from using it in the future as an insult against people who are simply exercising their right of free speech and peaceful dissent? The introduction of it into the political arena by prominant media talking heads was deceptive, sneaky and meant totally as a vulgar smear.
    And now we see people who want to be voted into office, “to represent their constituents” using the term. Disgusting.

  14. Well papatodd, there we have it, don’t we?

    Leaving aside questions of how the rich get rich or if hard work = wealth (I think coal miners work pretty damn hard but they aren’t getting rich) the real question is should a country be judged on the number of rich people it produces? What about the overall well-being of its citizenry? What about the ability for people to interact with the institutions of their government in some meaningful way regardless of income? Is there a level of income stratification that that is unsustainable in the long term? These are some of the measures that one should judge a country on – but I don’t see them being discussed in any serious way by conservatives.

  15. papatodd, the point is teabaggers called themselves teabaggers first. You can’t run around crying “slander” or “sexual slur” when it was your self-chosen name to begin with!

    I would also point out that during my attendance at three “tea party” events here in S. AZ teabaggers who recognized me used terms much more crude than the slang definition of “tea-bagger.”

    Teabaggers are hypocrites.

  16. Tea Partiers didn’t call themselves anything. It was “Join the Tea Party.”
    It was the MSM which brought it up first, in everyone’s faces, knowing full well what they were doing – a big sneaky laugh (slipping it by the FCC).
    SO everything about it is vulgar – degrading the public debate, cynical dodging broadcasting decorum, and making personal insults against people who simply want to voice their opinions about high taxes.
    The Left’s popular bumpersticker for 8 years was “Dissent is Patriotic.” So average people have organized to voice their huge concerns about high taxes, and suddenly it’s something to be mocked?
    Since when? So, what does it means then, when this has been public knowledge for months, for a politican running for office to use the openly insulting term, “tea baggers?” Is it ignorance of the term, which is all over the internet and been exposed as offensive on network news broadcasts, or malicious – knowing the term and purposely using it to denigrate potential voters or citizens who the politicians claims she’ll swear to represent? Since when do elected politicians decide that they only respect those who voted for them, not those who voted against them? Hardly a strategy for endearing the public as a whole.
    Ignorant or malicious.
    Not a pretty choice of descriptions for someone who is trying to charm the folks to vote for her.

  17. I would also point out that during my attendance at three “tea party” events here in S. AZ teabaggers who recognized me used terms much more crude than the slang definition of “tea-bagger.”
    Dang! Who ARE you?

    And, btw, if you didn’t like it, not one eensty little bit, then doesn’t it make sense not to turn around and fling vulgarity against others?
    Ya know, “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you?”
    Anyone one on this blog call you that? Nope.
    Isn’t it group identity politics to blame the innocent for what others did? To hold an entire group guilty for the transgression of a very few? Is that fair, or justice?
    Since you have been a victim of this, surely you should have weighed in immediately and agreed, “YES! That’s NOT RIGHT to talk smack like that! I know, it’s happened to ME and I was offended.”


  18. “Public service in terms of being a high-ranking elected official has always been a road to enrichment and being well connected to government has always paid off in the US. I am not sure what idyllic America you are imagining but it is certainly never one that existed.”
    How many US presidents have become billionaires?
    Gates, Wall, Buffet … did they get their money in business or political office?
    Nigeria: Billionaire generals
    Zaire: Billionaire president
    WHo’s got the big money in pocket in Zimabawe? Business or President Mugabe?
    There has traditionally been FAR FAR more money to be made in American private enterprise than in government.

    Wristwatch Survey of G-7 leaders a few years ago:
    Watches over $1,000 :
    Paiget, Rolexes:
    John Major – UK
    Francois Mitterand – France (Paiget)
    Mikhail Gorbachev -Soviet Union (Rolex)

    George Bush – TIMEX $39.99

    The only guy of the group who had his own personal wealth thru the private sector before entering politics had the cheapest watch. The leader of the Soviet Worker’s Paradise where private ownership was illegal – a honkin’ Rolex. Classic.

  19. Wanumba, AS always, you are spot-on, but that makes no difference to this bunch. They rail capitalism and the free market system, all the while enjoying any and all perks that capitalists have created, like their computers and their software and google (Gates and Jobs, those greedy bastards) Forget the fact that Microsoft has created more millionaires than any company in the history of the world. Forget the FACT that GATES personally NOT Microsoft has given away since 2000, $29 BILLION to charities) Hey capitalist bashers, how much you give to charity? Also, I’m sure they shop at Amazon (Jeff Bezos is bad too)and secretly, late at night shop at Walmart(Sam Walton is surely evil, never mind the thousands and thousand of jobs he’s created) Thanks for trying to enlighten, but you are obviously wasting your time on this bunch. Love to chat more, but I got a business ( well actaully three of them) to run. Got to go turn an evil profit. Keep fighting the good fight, Mr. Wanumba! Let’s do lunch, I’m buying because I’ll write the whole thing off as a tax deduction.

  20. wanumba – you must be joking. George H. W. Bush is from one of the most patrician families in US history.

  21. papatodd, if capitalism creates millionaires, does it also create poverty?

  22. A good question Todd. Let us look to history. China has been around for close to 3000 years and their econonic system cannot even touch what America has created in a scant 200+ years. The entire middle east (some would call it the buirthplace of humanity, a topic for another day)has also been around for 1000s of years and have yet little to show for it. To clarify, the capitalist sytem allows for people, at least a fighting chance to rise up out of poverty. If it didn’t, all these peole would not be risking life and limb to come to America. At least here they have a shot. In china they have a better chance of being shot. Of couse there is poverty in America, but sadly the majority of of it (emphasize majority, there is alway the exception to the rule) is self-inflicted. That is why the stories of Gates, Jobs, Walton, Kroc,Disney hell even Coronel Sanders inspire us all some much. Sanders was in his late 60’s, rejected damn never 1000 times for his chicken recipe, but through hard work, an amazing attitude and unbeliveable persistence was able to fulfill his dream. Same story with all the rest. Like the movie Rocky? Read the story of Sly Stallone and how he came to make HIS dream come true. I am not celebrting his celebrity. I am celebrating his story. He too, like some many others rose out of the din. Only in America Baby!

  23. so when people get rich it is because of capitalism, when poor it is their fault. sort of tails i win heads you lose kind of thing.

  24. I am not kidding. It was in the newspapers. Bush (George H.W.) wore TIMEX, Gorby wore ROLEX.
    Who’d a guessed.
    Actually it makes perfect sense. Gorby’s ROLEX was a symbol that he had communist political clout – a power perk. Bush’s TIMEX was because he was rich enough to not care about status, he just wanted a solid watch that didn’t cost much and worked. Very very New England patrician, actually.

  25. All capitialism does is provide more opportunities to earn wages, make business, and allow the individual to keep his or her own wealth.
    There will always be poor. Some poeple just cannot get it together for a variety of reasons. Capitalist societies produce more money, produce more voluntary charity, and creat more opportunties for helping truly needy people.
    SOcialism makes non-producers out of producers, by taking away people’s production earnings. It taxes money out of people so they have less to share. It restricts opportunities to make work, find work and just work. WIth money being absorbed by the state, recipients of taxpayer money usually end up being those who are politically favored, not those who are needy.
    Zimbabwe is a classic, contemporary case. The big producing farms were confiscated under the mantra of returning them to the small guy, but in fact they have been redistributed to political hacks in the government who don’t know the first thing about commercial farming, so the land lies idle. Zimbabwe has gone from a net producer and exporter to a basket-case, requiring humanitarian food aid. Thousands of Zimbabweans are out of work.
    It is a political philosophy that “capitalism” is “unfair” not a truth.

  26. so in America the haves get that way because of hard work but in other countries it is through corrupt practices. In America the have-nots are that way because they are lazy but in other countries it is because they are oppressed. All very interesting.

    Look, I’m fine with an argument that wants to claim capitalism provides more opportunity than others, but what seems ridiculous is to claim that poverty in capitalism is because of laziness or stupidity.

  27. so if it isn’t laziness or ignorance (I never used the word “stupidity”, your word not mine), what else is it? We could into a whole subcatagory like fear, peer pressure, etc. but it misses the point. Again let a=us look at the 1000s of immigrants who come to America, not being able to speak the language, who start a small mom-and-pop shop of whatever variety, and somehow in a very few years have established themselves very well in the US. I oersonally know many such families where I live who have done exactly that. I’m sure you do too. These hard working immigrants tend to take away all the excuses of those who sit in their butts in the US. Again, so if it isn’t laziness or ignorance, that would leave what….?

  28. Todd, you seem like quite a reasonable intellegent person. My concern is your statements of the haves and the have-nots. If I understand that philosophy, then there is a limited “pie” and the “haves” have gotten to where they are by taking something away from the “have-nots”. Going back to an early comment, based upon that idea, then Gates, Sam Walton, Coronel Sanders, Stallone and the rest got to where they are by somehow taking something away from other citezens. I simply cannot find any truth in that theory.

  29. pappatodd – i think when we look at things like CEO to worker pay being 24 times in the 60’s to almost 300 times now, or the fact that wages for most have been stagnant since the 70’s while we have seen this incredible number of millionaires and billionaires being created, or the increase in wealth stratification during this time, etc. one might start to consider why this is happening. However, to prove something such as this would take more than a blog post, but I do think there is substantial evidence that in fact my view is correct.

    But I want to point out something about how these Horatio Alger stories get used. It seems to me there is a conflation between the idea that ‘anyone could get rich’ with the idea that ‘everyone can be rich.’ Even if the former is true (and that is another subject) it does not mean the latter is.

Speak Your Mind


judi online bonanza88 slot baccarat online slot idn live situs idn poker judi bola tangkas88 pragmatic play sbobet slot dana casino online idn pokerseri joker123 selot slot88
Türkiye’den Kıbrıs’a evden eve nakliyat