EPTRepublican nominations - Page 120
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
discodancer
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
| ||
|
discodancer
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
CleanableCow
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Black Grapes
3 Posts
| ||
|
CleanableCow
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
I know what he was trying to say, but jeez he can't catch a damn break. I'm sure the actual quote will be out pretty soon and I can source it accurately  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LennyLeonard
United States48 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46651 Posts
On October 08 2011 05:40 xDaunt wrote: No one one should give two shits about those issues in this election. That's like worrying about what your flower garden looks like when your house is on fire. To be fair, women, gays, Muslims, and other people who care about equality and civil rights might give at least two- if not more- shits about those topics. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On October 08 2011 11:42 lizzard_warish wrote: People were bashing Obama for having no experience, political or otherwise. Being a first term senator hardly qualifies you to make decisions on a global scale, and it hardly gives any indication on whether you have a fucking clue what your talking about [and obviously enough obama did not]. Having a degree in economics or decades of experience in the economy, well, herpy derpy, that might just give you some credible experience in making real decisions effecting the economy. And oh my GAWD Hermann Cain alongside the other 85+% of Americans who are christian think homosexuality is a sin? Why thats just...well completely average.My post was in reply to the muslim thing. As to abortion and gay marriage...he holds a position that roughly half of Americans hold, so the fuck what? Sorry, but outside of your little college socialist bubble such positions arent extreme or surprising. Nor can he really effect them outside of supreme court justice appointments so you take your sensationalistic panic attacks somewhere else. Thinking homosexuality is a sin and actively campaigning against same sex marriage is different. It's a shame you can't see that, when this country was built on the foundations of tolerance. Also, where was I being sensational here? I dislike the candidate because his views are abhorrent, oh no, call TMZ! Who the fuck cares what the majority of ignorant WASPs think. The far right can keep those votes. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
So Romney wants to resurrect Bush Foreign Policy, he is really reaching far right for votes. If that was true (Romney reaching far right for votes through his foreign policy talking points), he'd be talking like Ron Paul. The far right is neo-isolationist, not neo-con. Bush's foreign policy is in substance Obama's foreign policy, nothing has changed but the man in the Oval Office and the words he says. All style changes, substance still the same. So acting like it would be resurrected is kind of inexplicable. Can't resurrect something that never died. So you say the wars are unimportant because they're obsolete to world-politics, but then come up with 9/11 which "only" was 10 years ago. My goodness are you really so angry and dense that you can't figure out that I turned your logic against you to show you it supported a position that you would vehemently disagree with? What does your talking about the blood feuds mean? The only blood feud is the afghan war. It's officialy revenge for 9/11. Do you want me to tell, that because islamic terrorism still exists, it's okay that the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq still continue? Well of course it's okay they continue as their governments say we're okay to be there, but that isn't what I was saying. What I'm saying is that you are setting a ridiculously low standard for justification of the kind of mindless anger that causes things like September 11th and the invasion of Iraq in the first place. You still want to be so angry about the wars, fine. Then we get to still be equally angry as well about terrorists, and we've already seen where both roads go. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, except it's good for neither here. But I suppose you probably never thought about it that way. Too blinded by anger at the United States. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On October 08 2011 23:17 DeepElemBlues wrote: If that was true (Romney reaching far right for votes through his foreign policy talking points), he'd be talking like Ron Paul. The far right is neo-isolationist, not neo-con. Bush's foreign policy is in substance Obama's foreign policy, nothing has changed but the man in the Oval Office and the words he says. All style changes, substance still the same. So acting like it would be resurrected is kind of inexplicable. Can't resurrect something that never died. My goodness are you really so angry and dense that you can't figure out that I turned your logic against you to show you it supported a position that you would vehemently disagree with? Well of course it's okay they continue as their governments say we're okay to be there, but that isn't what I was saying. What I'm saying is that you are setting a ridiculously low standard for justification of the kind of mindless anger that causes things like September 11th and the invasion of Iraq in the first place. You still want to be so angry about the wars, fine. Then we get to still be equally angry as well about terrorists, and we've already seen where both roads go. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, except it's good for neither here. But I suppose you probably never thought about it that way. Too blinded by anger at the United States. I am still angry at the wars because they _still continue_, imagine a 9/11 every month since the start of the Iraq War. If there would be reconciliation, troops removed etc. blabla Then I would change my opinion. But they are not over, they still rage on, they are not history but present. Do you really not understand me? And I don't have irrational anger at the USA. Some or many things I'm not ok with, and then I name them and talk about them. If the USA would change tomorrow and would champion humanity like they represent themselves, then I would stop criticizing. | ||
|
Holey
United States68 Posts
we all know why we want him to get elected ^^ lol | ||
|
Dandy Lion
Italy11 Posts
On October 09 2011 02:11 Holey wrote: Ron Paul! we all know why we want him to get elected ^^ lol So that sick people will die untreated in their homes because they can't afford healthcare ^^ lol | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On October 09 2011 02:56 Dandy Lion wrote: So that sick people will die untreated in their homes because they can't afford healthcare ^^ lol If that is what you wish, then you will have the freedom to do so. If not, buy insurance. | ||
|
Dandy Lion
Italy11 Posts
On October 09 2011 03:10 stevarius wrote: If that is what you wish, then you will have the freedom to do so. If not, buy insurance. I agree completely. I cannot understand why some people are so stubbornly poor. I'd just like to tell them "Be rich, goddamnit!". | ||
|
Papulatus
United States669 Posts
On October 09 2011 02:56 Dandy Lion wrote: So that sick people will die untreated in their homes because they can't afford healthcare ^^ lol Who's fault is it that "they" cant afford insurance? | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On October 09 2011 03:10 stevarius wrote: If that is what you wish, then you will have the freedom to do so. If not, buy insurance. How much is American insurance anyhow? | ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On October 09 2011 03:23 Papulatus wrote: Who's fault is it that "they" cant afford insurance? It can be for a variety of reasons. But the fact is, not everyone has the same opportunities. That's why the Republican party's ideas don't work. | ||
| ||
