Republican nominations - Page 327

On January 20 2012 17:09 Terry Bogard wrote:
All I'm saying is we do horrible things everyday.

Let's look at ourselves. What did we spend our last hundred dollars (of spare money after rent and food) on?

Probably junk food, computer games, basically entertainment stuff right.

Consider this. Every night when we go to sleep, 30,000 kids in Africa die of starvation. Malnutrition and diarrhea are huge issues.

And there are groups that allow you to sponsor children. Each child you sponsor is a child saved, right?

But what do we do? We live our lives and get by each day entertaining ourselves, doing stuff to please ourselves, to gratify ourselves.

Are we any better than someone who leaves his wife to die, when daily thousands of children are dying, yet instead of spending our money on them, we spend it on ourselves?

On January 20 2012 18:39 bOneSeven wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-f34z5O7AU

- Another great video about presidents..all for comedy..kind of dark tho

I got my mind blown when I found out ( in my ignorance ) that Ronald Reagan was actually an actor....WHAT THE HELL AMERICA??? And you elected that guy twice... Really ??

For me.. Still Ron Paul 2012 last hope for the system.

On January 20 2012 12:01 acker wrote:


Paul and Gingrich can't stand up to Obama. Romney certainly can, but not in a debate. Probably in economy, which would be good enough to win if Europe keels over.

On January 20 2012 16:52 Terry Bogard wrote:


Let me play Devil's Advocate.

I think it's quite easy to be quick to judge - but what if you were put in his shoes?

I had a friend who was in a two year relationship. Then he got cancer and his girlfriend left him because he only had three years left to live (according to the doctors). Fact of the matter is, when you are faced with having to love someone who is of lower value, your attraction for them decreases.

If we were all saints, we would all be marrying people like this:

+ Show Spoiler +

Which girl did you masturbate over and want to date when you were in high school? I guarantee that 10 times out of 10 it was a hot chick. Nobody wants the fat and ugly chick.

Now we go on about how it's wrong for Gingrich to dump an older woman for a younger mistress. Well, I hope that if you feel that is ethically wrong, that you one day marry (if you're not already married) someone who no other guy wants. Because everybody wants to equally be loved. Yet we, by human nature, choose beauty over ugliness.

Say there are two women. One is 40 and has never been loved. Then there is a 20 year old chick who every guy wants to marry because she's fucking sexy enough to be a pornstar. Who are you going to choose?

Obviously, by purely ethical standards, it is unfair that the 60 year old has never even been kissed, simply because Jesus fucking Christ made her the way she is (physically), so you should choose her.

But are you going to do it? Fuck no.

And don't forget that the same thing happened with John Edwards.

So let's be honest here. It's easy to get on our high horses and condemn Gingrich for dumping an ugly ass wife for a relatively hotter one. But let's not pretend none of us would do the exact same thing, or are doing the exact same thing everyday. There are thousands of cancer patients out there but how many of us are selflessly sacrificing our lives going to visit them instead of playing SC?

As for Gingrich's 'Christian' values - if America wasn't so full of dumbass people who believed in fairy tales then their politicians wouldn't have to be pandering to such ridiculously retarded beliefs.

On January 20 2012 22:54 Haemonculus wrote:
Yah, in my mind it's not so much that he cheated and/or screwed over his wives, (which is still really really shitty behavior), but the fact that he does all that WHILE claiming to be some champion of "family values" and "protecting the sanctity of marriage", *and* attacking Bill Clinton for doing the same shit.

That level of hypocrisy is just ridiculous.

On January 20 2012 16:56 Terry Bogard wrote:
Also it's worth noting that women are very irrational. Gingrich's second wife goes on ABC going on about how Gingrich is evil because he cheated on her - all while she cheated with him on his first wife. Women love to justify themselves and make themselves look perfect whilst ignoring any hypocritical shit they did in their pasts. They rationalise their own mistakes by saying things like: "Well, he wasn't in love with his first wife so it was OK for me to marry him then." And then she goes on to attack him for doing the exact same thing (surprise surprise, what did you expect). Pathetic victim mentality.

On January 20 2012 16:56 Terry Bogard wrote:
Also it's worth noting that women are very irrational. Gingrich's second wife goes on ABC going on about how Gingrich is evil because he cheated on her - all while she cheated with him on his first wife. Women love to justify themselves and make themselves look perfect whilst ignoring any hypocritical shit they did in their pasts. They rationalise their own mistakes by saying things like: "Well, he wasn't in love with his first wife so it was OK for me to marry him then." And then she goes on to attack him for doing the exact same thing (surprise surprise, what did you expect). Pathetic victim mentality.

On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))

If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.

It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.

I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.

Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess.

On January 20 2012 22:00 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:


I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would destroy Obama on Foreign policy and civil liberties easily.

On January 21 2012 01:58 xDaunt wrote:

Sorry Ron Paul fans, but Obama would beat Ron Paul solely because of foreign policy issues. Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't just out of step with mainstream America, they're also offensive to most Americans. Whether he's right isn't really relevant.

On January 21 2012 01:58 xDaunt wrote:

Sorry Ron Paul fans, but Obama would beat Ron Paul solely because of foreign policy issues. Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't just out of step with mainstream America, they're also offensive to most Americans. Whether he's right isn't really relevant.

On January 21 2012 01:58 xDaunt wrote:

Sorry Ron Paul fans, but Obama would beat Ron Paul solely because of foreign policy issues. Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't just out of step with mainstream America, they're also offensive to most Americans. Whether he's right isn't really relevant.

On January 20 2012 16:52 Terry Bogard wrote:


Let me play Devil's Advocate.

I think it's quite easy to be quick to judge - but what if you were put in his shoes?

I had a friend who was in a two year relationship. Then he got cancer and his girlfriend left him because he only had three years left to live (according to the doctors). Fact of the matter is, when you are faced with having to love someone who is of lower value, your attraction for them decreases.

If we were all saints, we would all be marrying people like this:

+ Show Spoiler +

Which girl did you masturbate over and want to date when you were in high school? I guarantee that 10 times out of 10 it was a hot chick. Nobody wants the fat and ugly chick.

Now we go on about how it's wrong for Gingrich to dump an older woman for a younger mistress. Well, I hope that if you feel that is ethically wrong, that you one day marry (if you're not already married) someone who no other guy wants. Because everybody wants to equally be loved. Yet we, by human nature, choose beauty over ugliness.

Say there are two women. One is 40 and has never been loved. Then there is a 20 year old chick who every guy wants to marry because she's fucking sexy enough to be a pornstar. Who are you going to choose?

Obviously, by purely ethical standards, it is unfair that the 60 year old has never even been kissed, simply because Jesus fucking Christ made her the way she is (physically), so you should choose her.

But are you going to do it? Fuck no.

And don't forget that the same thing happened with John Edwards.

So let's be honest here. It's easy to get on our high horses and condemn Gingrich for dumping an ugly ass wife for a relatively hotter one. But let's not pretend none of us would do the exact same thing, or are doing the exact same thing everyday. There are thousands of cancer patients out there but how many of us are selflessly sacrificing our lives going to visit them instead of playing SC?

As for Gingrich's 'Christian' values - if America wasn't so full of dumbass people who believed in fairy tales then their politicians wouldn't have to be pandering to such ridiculously retarded beliefs.

All I'm saying is we do horrible things everyday.

Let's look at ourselves. What did we spend our last hundred dollars (of spare money after rent and food) on?

Probably junk food, computer games, basically entertainment stuff right.

Consider this. Every night when we go to sleep, 30,000 kids in Africa die of starvation. Malnutrition and diarrhea are huge issues.

And there are groups that allow you to sponsor children. Each child you sponsor is a child saved, right?

But what do we do? We live our lives and get by each day entertaining ourselves, doing stuff to please ourselves, to gratify ourselves.

Are we any better than someone who leaves his wife to die, when daily thousands of children are dying, yet instead of spending our money on them, we spend it on ourselves?

On January 20 2012 16:56 D10 wrote:
Hey guys I dont know anything about how the american elections are going, can someone shed light on a few questions?

First question, do you think obama will get reelected ?

Second question, whos winning the republican nominations ?

Third question, what about ron paul ? does he have a chance on this one ?

thanks

On January 21 2012 02:20 D10 wrote:
Im sad that none one wanted to answer my questions, instead just keep this mindless and unproductive discussion