|
Huntsman was the guy everyone except the primary voters liked.
|
On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong.
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you should take a closer look at his history.
|
On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought.
I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it.
|
On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it.
Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president.
|
On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far...
edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president.
Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base.
|
On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far...
edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. How many scientists do you think would agree that "not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science" though?
|
On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base.
Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes.
I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do.
|
On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy.
edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do.
You REALLY believe Cain had a "substantive platform"? What, 999? As soon as he wasn't able to spew the same 5 one-liners, Cain had no idea about anything, the plethora of videos on youtube prove that. I hope you aren't serious.
|
On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy.
edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do.
Just because someone is slightly less conservative than you doesn't mean they're a liberal...
And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain?
|
On March 05 2012 08:30 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. You REALLY believe Cain had a "substantive platform"? What, 999? As soon as he wasn't able to spew the same 5 one-liners, Cain had no idea about anything, the plethora of videos on youtube prove that. I hope you aren't serious.
Like it or not, 999 was a substantial and significant platform to run on.
|
On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy.
edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do.
What was substantive about Bachmann's platform?
Eh I dunno. I wasn't paying as much attention to the race back then. It would probably help if you gave a more detailed opinion on Huntsman though. But he did seem like a likable, small government, socially conservative person like you were saying. I thought it was mostly due to others taking the spotlight. Shrug.
Pffff, social conservative and small government is total cognitive dissonance by the way.
|
On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain?
Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now.
|
On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now.
And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates.
If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes.
|
On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes.
qft
User was warned for this post
|
On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger! Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger? edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes.
Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts.
|
On March 05 2012 09:00 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger?
edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong.
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. qft
So are you saying that you are conservative?
|
On March 05 2012 09:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:00 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. qft So are you saying that you are conservative?
I think that would only be considered conservative in word usage!
|
On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger?
edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong.
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts.
You know, i'm progressive, but there are republican candidates and republicans in general that i can respect. Perhaps i don't agree with their policies on some issues, but i can respect them. To blindly say that i'm some left wing lune who hates everyone that doesn't agree with me is rather stupid. I supremely dislike Santorum because of his social policy, while i respect Huntsman because he didn't randomly pull "facts" out of his ass like Santorum. (Netherlands euthanization comes to mind)
I've watched every debate since the race got serious (after pawlenty withdrew etc), so i would say i'm relatively well informed on each candidates platform. flame incoming
|
On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:34 DamnCats wrote:
[quote]
Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger?
edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong.
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts.
On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative
|
On March 05 2012 09:07 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. You know, i'm progressive, but there are republican candidates and republicans in general that i can respect. Perhaps i don't agree with their policies on some issues, but i can respect them. To blindly say that i'm some left wing lune who hates everyone that doesn't agree with me is rather stupid. I supremely dislike Santorum because of his social policy, while i respect Huntsman because he didn't randomly pull "facts" out of his ass like Santorum. (Netherlands euthanization comes to mind) I've watched every debate since the race got serious (after pawlenty withdrew etc), so i would say i'm relatively well informed on each candidates platform. flame incoming
You are a progressive? Shocking!
So can we please stop pretending that it is impossible to determine where posters in here fall along the political spectrum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
