|
On December 04 2011 07:48 below66 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 07:24 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +He got hammered. Feel so bad for the guy. Hopefully he can rise above it but if not, Gingrich is the next President. It's funny I called those two to be the last two, but it looks like Gingrich might run away with it. Considering your post lately in other threads and the fact that you thought Cain stood a chance, I'm gonna go ahead and take that as an indication and and hopeful view that your call on Gingrich is gonna be just as bad. He's out already btw.
I don't know who you are, or care, but I do think that you should look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you think I care what some dipwad who doesn't know the first thing about me or the Republican nomination thinks?
He suspended the campaign, that doesn't mean he's out. Oh and BTW, Gingrich is polling at 45%+...
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 04 2011 06:36 koreasilver wrote:
The past couple of months where various posters in this forum supported this guy so wholeheartedly was pretty much a live action case study on how people are played like goddamned puppets by the media circus show, and how their supposed clairvoyance and "reasoned" reasons for supporting such an idiotic candidate, the serious praise that people showed for the "999" plan, and all such inanity was nothing but an utter stupidity. You fellows have done nothing but dance on the palms of these people and you should all be incredibly ashamed of being such goddamned idiots. I wish I could have compiled all your idiotic posts the past few months, but really, what is the point when you fellows don't give a fuck all about what is actually real.
It's called FOX news. It's sad that pretty much all conservative leaning persons watch and listen that channel almost exclusively... now FOX is manipulating viewers into voting for Gingrich.. if you don't believe this, just watch the last interview of both Romney - Brett Bier -- and Gingrich -- Hannity -- on FOX.. it's hard to explain away the favoritism there.
|
Oh man the arrogance is very strong in this thread. Don't worry guys, I won't spit on your pat your own back parade, carry on, you geniuses you!
|
This isn't news... first it was Perry, then they built up Cain, now it's Gingrich, then he's gonna get torn down for being a hypocritical conniving snake, and they're gonna move onto someone else.
They're never gonna support Romeny, obviously because he's basically a democrat, and they're not gonna support Paul either because they're stupid so....
|
On December 04 2011 08:18 Kiarip wrote:
This isn't news... first it was Perry, then they built up Cain, now it's Gingrich, then he's gonna get torn down for being a hypocritical conniving snake, and they're gonna move onto someone else.
They're never gonna support Romeny, obviously because he's basically a democrat, and they're not gonna support Paul either because they're stupid so....
You're right except the last part, they won't support Paul because his values don't match up with either the moderate or conservative Republican bases. I think he's a Republican a lot of Democrats (and foreigners in less conservative countries) would like to have.
|
It's a shame they hate Romeny for being a sensible person. The guy got boo'd when saying he opposes all forms of torture whilst all other republican candidates endorsed it. This is disgusting and if you disagree you really need to read up on how human rights and spiraling revenge works.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vBnfm.jpg)
The only candidate who isnt a complete nutcase is Paul imo.
|
lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
Anyway, Cain never really had a huge chance of winning the nomination, and I think pretty much everyone knew it. Same goes for Bachmann and Gingrich. Maybe Perry had a chance before he started mucking up, but really the only true candidate this whole time has been Romney. As much as I would LOVE to support Paul, he's not viable either, unfortunately.
One day though, the Republicans will have their modern Reagan. I imagine it will be a hybrid, the principles and beliefs of Paul, coupled with the political sense and public relations of Romney. Or maybe it's better if they don't find that candidate, so the Republican party can dissolve once and for all.
But I suspect the US will do neither, and will be in the same place Greece is in just a matter of years. It's a real shame.
|
On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote:
lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :>
|
On December 04 2011 09:51 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote:
lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :>
It's true that only in America do people twist words and labels in politics? Nonsense. It occurs everywhere, even in the quote itself, when it suggests that people are things like "pro-landmines" or "pro-torture." Get out of your partisan mentality please.
|
On December 04 2011 10:04 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 09:51 Skilledblob wrote:On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote:
lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :> It's true that only in America do people twist words and labels in politics? Nonsense. It occurs everywhere, even in the quote itself, when it suggests that people are things like "pro-landmines" or "pro-torture." Get out of your partisan mentality please.
all that was done in the name of a republican government who does after all represent a big enough amount of people to be able to rule the country.
while I am sure that there are people who vote republican and dont support torture or landmines, a representative democracy does not account for those people. After you gave your vote you consented to everything in the parties agenda and what the government will do in the future, which can lead to quotes like that one beneath the picture.
|
I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent."
|
On December 04 2011 08:18 Kiarip wrote:
This isn't news... first it was Perry, then they built up Cain, now it's Gingrich, then he's gonna get torn down for being a snake, and they're gonna move onto someone else.
They're never gonna support Romeny, obviously because he's basically a democrat, and they're not gonna support Paul either because they're stupid so....
It would almost be better if they didn't nominate a hypocritical, closed-minded, conniving, back handed, incompetent, corrupt snake.
But why would the Republicans nominate a Democrat for president? Seems redundant.
|
On December 04 2011 10:42 liberal wrote:
I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent."
Show me two things in that poster which aren't essentially true and ill admit that it is a smear.
|
On December 04 2011 09:35 holzofenbrot wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The only candidate who isnt a complete nutcase is Paul imo.
Paul is pro-life though isn't he?
|
On December 04 2011 10:48 Insomni7 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 10:42 liberal wrote:
I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent." Show me two things in that poster which aren't essentially true and ill admit that it is a smear.
Don't you realize that words themselves can be designed as smears?
When people call themselves "pro-life," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-life." When people call themselves "pro-choice," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-choice." The words themselves are designed to smear the other side. Just because your partisan perspective may agree with one set of labels over the other, doesn't mean that one set of labels are "truthful" and "accurate" and the other labels aren't. It's all just how we choose to define things.
|
On December 04 2011 10:51 Ballack wrote:Paul is pro-life though isn't he?
he wouldnt have any federal laws regarding it, leaving it up to the states.
|
United States294 Posts
|
On December 04 2011 10:59 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 10:48 Insomni7 wrote:On December 04 2011 10:42 liberal wrote:
I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent." Show me two things in that poster which aren't essentially true and ill admit that it is a smear. Don't you realize that words themselves can be designed as smears? When people call themselves "pro-life," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-life." When people call themselves "pro-choice," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-choice." The words themselves are designed to smear the other side. Just because your partisan perspective may agree with one set of labels over the other, doesn't mean that one set of labels are "truthful" and "accurate" and the other labels aren't. It's all just how we choose to define things.
Pretty much all of the differences in opinion in politics stem from differences in definitions. You've hit the nail on the head.
|
On December 04 2011 10:04 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 09:51 Skilledblob wrote:On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote:
lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :> It's true that only in America do people twist words and labels in politics? Nonsense. It occurs everywhere, even in the quote itself, when it suggests that people are things like "pro-landmines" or "pro-torture." Get out of your partisan mentality please.
Well, regardless of how literal the words are meant to be, the phrases "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are simply titles for party platforms usually attributed to the Republican, and Democratic parties of the United States, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
