Republican nominations - Page 120

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.

So Romney wants to resurrect Bush Foreign Policy, he is really reaching far right for votes.

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.

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?

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.

On October 09 2011 02:11 Holey wrote:
Ron Paul!
we all know why we want him to get elected ^^ lol

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

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.

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

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.

On October 09 2011 03:23 Papulatus wrote:



Who's fault is it that "they" cant afford insurance?