Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • Zombaypirate
    More confirmation the nation is screwed. Ron Paul and the "ronulans" spew rheteric. I have not laughed that hard in a long long time.

    People who vote for HUGE government for their entire lives critizing Ron Paul and the ronulans Bwhahahahahahahaha.

    Please everyone enjoy the swollen maggot carcass called the US when you vote for more spending. Please someone save this and let me know when the US is out of debt and not raising the deficit. I will gladly retract my statement.

    The entire world has gone liberal in my old age.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;1066880 wrote:This is a lazy and pathetic view. What if people had that attitude about everything? Slavery, women's rights, diseases, technology, etc.
    All these things are still a problem in the world. Not so much in our coushy little plot.
    I Wear Pants;1066880 wrote: The world is a better place because people strive to change "the way things are". You make fun of them for being what you see as idealist while I'll applaud them for actually trying to do something good instead of relying on the fact that they were lucky enough to be born in a place that doesn't suck.
    Go ahead. And while you are at it work on getting rid of greed, envy, coveting, and hate. No murderers, theives, liars, etc. Thing is these people get hold of political power and do it on a mass scale.
  • fish82
    I Wear Pants;1066913 wrote:When in the **** did I say violence was the answer?
    I didn't say you did. I'm merely pointing out the dichotomy of those who effect change through non-viloent means vs. those who fly planes into buildings. Note that those with a higher degree of success are generally the ones with the placards and marches vs. the ones blowing themselves up in the market.

    It all goes back to my original statement that got you people's panties all twisted...if you're a Muslim who is not a fan of our foreign policy, effect change the way those who have success at it do...flying heavies into skyscrapers is a tad counter productive.
  • sleeper
    fish82;1066906 wrote:LOL...coming from you, I'll consider that a badge of honor. Go back and caption some more photos...rest your brain a little.
    This coming from someone who believes, at his core, that terrorists attack us because we are free.

    #ruined
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;1066921 wrote:All these things are still a problem in the world. Not so much in our coushy little plot.



    Go ahead. And while you are at it work on getting rid of greed, envy, coveting, and hate. No murderers, theives, liars, etc. Thing is these people get hold of political power and do it on a mass scale.
    Ok, everyone should be a greedy, plundering fuck because there will always be some gotcha.

    Fish, I apologize then since I misinterpreted what you meant. Like I've said before and will say again...I'm tarded.
  • majorspark
    Zombaypirate;1066915 wrote:People who vote for HUGE government for their entire lives critizing Ron Paul and the ronulans Bwhahahahahahahaha.
    A couple of us critisizing the ronulans are voting to nominate Ron Paul. We disagree that it is a media conspiracy that Paul is powerless to overcome. Paul and the ronulans are all over the internet. I think the real problem is Paul's ability to communicate his message to Americans that pay scant attention and conservatives that are not that involved until the primary process. Paul himself alluded to it in a debate.

    Paul lets the moderater bate him into getting side tracked on what the average person is going to take as loon. For instance when a moderater trys to pull that shit on Gingrich he handles him. These debates are like a playground and Ron Paul is trying to sell the kidders veggies while the rest are handing out candy.
  • I Wear Pants
    Well that moderator was a pussy since he should have fucking buried Gingrich for his hypocrisy for daring to be upset that the question was asked.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;1066953 wrote:Ok, everyone should be a greedy, plundering fuck because there will always be some gotcha.

    Fish, I apologize then since I misinterpreted what you meant. Like I've said before and will say again...I'm tarded.
    I'll have to agree that you are tarded because I did not say that. There will always be some and we will have to deal with. Individually and at the state level. Even the church has not been able to get rid of greed in their own ranks.
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;1066959 wrote:I'll have to agree that you are tarded because I did not say that. There will always be some and we will have to deal with. Individually and at the state level. Even the church has not been able to get rid of greed in their own ranks.
    I have never said or suggested there will ever be a complete lack of assholes. But you seem to be saying that we shouldn't try to eliminate assholery because there will always be at least some element of that present.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;1066963 wrote:I have never said or suggested there will ever be a complete lack of assholes. But you seem to be saying that we shouldn't try to eliminate assholery because there will always be at least some element of that present.
    We can try to get rid of assholes. You may able to plug a few assholes here and there. But we always going deal with the shit that comes out of the rest.
  • fish82
    sleeper;1066944 wrote:This coming from someone who believes, at his core, that terrorists attack us because we are free.

    #ruined
    And...as the last resort...just make up some shit and toss it against the wall. Brilliant.:cool:

    I'm honestly shocked that you're considered the lead buffoon on every forum.

    #laughingstock
  • ptown_trojans_1
    ccrunner609;1067037 wrote:MSNBC is really pumping up Newt......that means they think that if he wins that Obama will beat him.
    Doubt it.
    Not one of my friends and colleagues that are R's/ conservative like Newt. (And yes, in the NOVA area where I work, there are many)
    He is not electable and cannot win the moderate. He is too right wing, too brash, too crazy, and his ideas make no sense, especially on the foreign policy side.

    Number wise, Newt also hurts in three key areas-moderates, women, and Latinos. Three huge voting blocs that decide elections.
    If Newt wins Florida, the Republican establishment will go nuts. It could be all out revolt. He has no allies, no friends, nothing.

    He would get crushed.

    That's just the politics of it.

    Policy wise, he is a joke. On Iran, he is flat wrong. On Afghanistan, he is flat wrong. On China, he is flat wrong, and on the way America is perceived, he is wrong.

    He is the female version of Palin, a great look-at-me candidate, but really just a paper tiger.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    ccrunner609;1067051 wrote:You can replace Newts name with Obama in all those cases and it holds true so how can you say he is unelectable?
    Last I checked Obama won women, moderates and Latinos in 2008. No one those categories would swing to Newt.
    Simple numbers man.
    Newt would get crushed.

    I usually don't pay attention to the polling, but Newt is so damn crazy that it has people freaking out around here.
    R's want to beat Obama, they have to swing moderates, Latinos, and women. Don't do that, game over.

    And I'd take Obama's foreign policy over crazy Newt's any day.
  • fish82
    Newt's skeletons are starting to fall out of the closet at a pretty brisk pace...he might hang on in Florida, but I'm thinking that might be about it.
  • jhay78
    I Wear Pants;1066838 wrote:Appease, absolutely not. We should have went after them with vigor. Only them. We should have went in and absolutely no remorse destroyed Al-Qaeda to the point that they didn't have the ability to influence the region significantly or recruit. If the Taliban had got in the way of that action we should have dealt with them as well. After that we should have been done with it.
    I Wear Pants;1066863 wrote:No we didn't. We went into nationbuilding mode to try to secure resources for ourselves after we defeated the enemy.

    We should have went, killed the people responsible and those that tried to get in the way of that (Taliban) and then left. That's it.
    Both of those scenarios would involve the unintended killing of scores of civilians, too. Just sayin. Maybe our problem is all that trying to rebuild after the bombing in an effort to make things better for the average civilian.
  • dwccrew
    jhay78;1066405 wrote:The guy has tinkered around the edges of 9/11 trutherism, agreed with Osama bin Laden that our military presence in Saudi Arabia inspired most of the 9/11 hijackers, said that the Bush administration was "gleeful" after 9/11 because they had an excuse to invade Iraq. He's said he understands why Iran as a sovereign nation would want a nuclear bomb, but then says don't worry they aren't even close to getting one.
    So what if he agreed with OBL on WHAT the reasoning of 9/11 was, doesn't mean he agrees with it. That is why they say they attacked, so how is agreeing with that being the reason wrong?

    The only thing I don't agree with is that the Bush admin was "gleeful" (well, Cheney probably was. Dude is evil....seriously). I don't think GWB wanted anything like that to ever happen.
    jhay78;1066405 wrote:He's also said that the only reason the Taliban hates us is because we're in their country, i.e, they don't like foreigners, when the fact is they were nurtured, armed, and financed by Saudis and Pakistanis (those are foreigners to Afghanistan). I have a hard time believing he would unleash holy hell on the group that gave safe haven to Al Qaeda long before 9/11.
    Saudis and Pakis, while from different countries, aren't foreign like Americans are foreign. The people over there don't think of foreigners like we do. They identify with each other even though they may dislike each other. We are all together different to them. Different religion (for the most part in their eyes) and different way to live life.
    fish82;1066578 wrote:Who gives a **** what their reason was? If you don't like our foreign policy, go burn a flag or march down the street with a sandwich board or something.
    Oh ok. If you don't like our domestic policy (which you complain about constantly), go burn a flag or march down the street with a sandwich board or something. See how that works?
    fish82;1066760 wrote:Cool story. Enlighten me what Iraq has to do with 9/11 again?
    I always wondered the same thing and why we ever invaded to begin with. 12 years after Desert Storm we all of a sudden decided Iraq was an imminent threat to the US? Hardly.
    fish82;1066797 wrote:That's after the fact. Try and keep up here...the question was what caused 9/11 to happen. Wanna take another stab at it?
    Do you? You never answered the question either. You had a cop-out answer that went as follows:
    Who gives a **** what their reason was? If you don't like our foreign policy, go burn a flag or march down the street with a sandwich board or something
    fish82;1066798 wrote:Good stuff. They're pissed because we don't pay enough for their oil. That's even dumber than "they hate us cause we're free."
    That's the only thing you got out of that video? That was one of many reasons.
    fish82;1066868 wrote:I left the nationbuilding out as part of my "sucked in." You're right on that...although other than Opium and goats, I'm not sure what "resources" the region as to offer. My point was we did in fact render AQ relatively impotent. The majority of their infastructure is gone, their communications/money flow have been seriously disrupted, and they're overall nowhere near what they once were
    Afghanistan certainly does have vast natural resources.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all
    fish82;1066888 wrote:LOL...their government could buy and sell our asses.
    Uh...no they couldn't.
    majorspark;1066972 wrote:We can try to get rid of ****s. You may able to plug a few ****s here and there. But we always going deal with the **** that comes out of the rest.
    What do you mean get rid of? We should not be meddling and getting involved. Then we wouldn't have to worry about getting rid of anything.
  • fish82
    dwccrew;1067185 wrote: Oh ok. If you don't like our domestic policy (which you complain about constantly), go burn a flag or march down the street with a sandwich board or something. See how that works?
    Well, I most certianly won't be flying any airplanes into buildings or blowing anything up in general. See how that works?
    Afghanistan certainly does have vast natural resources.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...pagewanted=all
    Which we just discovered a year ago. The original point was that they were a reason for us to invade in the first place.
    Uh...no they couldn't.
    Yeah, kinda. Sorry.
  • sleeper
    Ron Paul with another amazing debate. If he gets the nomination, Obama won't stand a chance.
  • dwccrew
    fish82;1067219 wrote:Well, I most certianly won't be flying any airplanes into buildings or blowing anything up in general. See how that works?
    No, I don't. I don't understand how that relates to someone not agreeing with our own government's foreign or domestic policy.

    fish82;1067219 wrote: Which we just discovered a year ago. The original point was that they were a reason for us to invade in the first place.
    I do agree that there was a reason to invade. I also was just pointing out that they have more than opium and goats. I was pointing out that your post was not accurate. I was not disputing when anything was discovered.

    fish82;1067219 wrote: Yeah, kinda. Sorry.
    Please explain or provide a link. We are still the most wealthy nation in the world. How could they buy and sell us?
  • Cleveland Buck
    Santorum is a joke. Ask him about any country. The answer is the same. Honduras? Honduran jihadists. Colombia? Colombian jihadists. Cuba? Cuban jihadists. I'm quite frankly shocked he during the space talk that he didn't push for us to go after the lunar jihadists and Martian jihadists. Later on he sounded weak by not threatening the Puerto Rican jihadists. What a fucking clown.
  • dwccrew
    ccrunner609;1067225 wrote:Well after tonight, Newt needed another home run and he hit a double. Romney will win Florida and the next 5 states are all ones he won 4 years ago. He will win 5-6 states in a row and it will be all over in 2 weeks.

    All we need to know is who is he is running with and how is he gonna get Obama.
    I didn't watch the debate so I don't know what Newt hit, but since you are a gym teacher I will take your word on whether he hit or stuck out.
  • dwccrew
    Cleveland Buck;1067231 wrote:Santorum is a joke. Ask him about any country. The answer is the same. Honduras? Honduran jihadists. Colombia? Colombian jihadists. Cuba? Cuban jihadists. I'm quite frankly shocked he during the space talk that he didn't push for us to go after the lunar jihadists and Martian jihadists. Later on he sounded weak by not threatening the Puerto Rican jihadists. What a ****ing clown.
    He probably thinks Puerto Rico is a state.
  • dwccrew
    ccrunner609;1067237 wrote:smart man
    I took several pre-med courses in college.
  • Cleveland Buck
    dwccrew;1067234 wrote:He probably thinks Puerto Rico is a state.
    He doesn't care if it is a state or not. He would bomb Cleveland if he thought he could get some jihadists.
  • majorspark
    dwccrew;1067185 wrote:What do you mean get rid of?


    Review the context of IWP's and I's discussion. My comment was not in the context of a military strike of any kind. Just in IWP's idealistic approach to achieving world harmony.
    dwccrew;1067185 wrote:We should not be meddling and getting involved. Then we wouldn't have to worry about getting rid of anything.
    Should we have pursued this policy with Japan prior to WWII. Had we not been meddling I agree we would not have gotten involved. We were economically engaging in cutting off their rescources that sustained their power. Oil, steel, etc.. We got to understand the reason we were attacked.