DC Tom Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Mike Huckabee supports at least eight out of those ten points... BS? You right wing nuts make me laugh. Mike Huckabee on the issues I'm not "right wing", and what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 I'm not "right wing", and what's your point? I read through the link looking for his "point" that he was trying to make, and ummm.... I got nothin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 -Obama is an elitist muslim born in Kenya who goes to a Christian church run by an extremist.He is elitist. He is muslim. His pastor was an extremist. .. blah blah blah... why I am pro-life while recognizing that my mother had a 'choice' before deciding to put me up for adoption." Okay, You just gave up and went to your go-to quotes and the end, nice job! Lol, thanks for proving my point. Facts and information mean nothing to you people. A little mental gymnastics, then plugyour ears when you can't argue and toss in some cognitive dissonance to top it off and you'll believe anything. And learn how to look **** up, will you? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=52%25+of+Republicans+...nt+Barack+Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 Whatever point you attempted to make was too difficult for me to figure out. Fixed! Outspending the means incoming is not a good precedent except in national emergency/war. Here in the USA, there is far too much credit given to Reagan for ending the Cold War. It happened on his watch. He played his role--and he deserves credit for hard rhetoric. The truth is the Iron Curtain was dying from a thousands knife wounds when Reagan came on board. He was holding the knife that delivered the death blow. Note: I did not mean to turn this into a Reagan-bashing thread. What I am saying is that in order to create the coalition that got him elected, he formed the Big Tent. That gathered true Libertarian-style conservatives into the same party as many traditional Southern Democrats. For a brief window of his impressive leadership, that Big Tent enacted quite a few Libertarian-style initiatives. But in his wake, he left a Big Tent with warring factions. Many of the Christian Righters don't give a rat's ass about fiscal responsibility. And the Libertarians are discontent with the Christian Right's desire to subjugate personal freedoms. That's the current Republican crossroads--and why even though Obama is a cluster!@#$ mess of a president, he could win in 2012 if the Republicans continue to try to work from Reagan's Big Tent party idea. By aggressively narrowing the list of people that can join the party they are narrowing their voting base. The majority of Americans are moderates. Going one way or the other is a good way to kill a party. The Democrats elected some very conservative candidates in the last two elections. So wait a minute...last time it was "Lincoln would be a Democrat", now it's Reagan? Yeah...the guy who basically told all the intelligentsia who "knew better" to blow it out their asses, and proceeded to play hardball with the Soviet Union? He would be a Democrat today. Right. The guy didn't bow to anyone, especially not the US Congress, and went ahead and funded anti-communists in Central/South America in spite of them...but he would be a Democrat today. Right. Wait a minute, are we talking TODAY's Democrat, or 1960's, or 1980's Democrat? JFK would not be a Democrat by today's standards. Not even close. The bottom line: How many Americans want to us to leave Afghanistan, want the kind of health care "reform" currently being proposed, and want us to close Gitmo/want terrorists imprisoned here in this country? Answer: 22%. 22% of our people agree with these ideas and identify as Democrats. Last I checked only having 22% support gets your ass kicked in an election. But, we have somebody trying to tell us that the Republicans, not the Democrats, have serious party division problems? Example: Tell me that both of you(Steely, Hedd) support all 3 of the above measures....if you don't, then you can't call yourself a Democrat anymore...according to the people running your party. I think the point you are missing, is that however much the Republicans may be squeezing out their party...the Democrats are doing it twice as much, over the last few years, and especially in the last year. IF this wasn't the case, then health care, cap and tax and all the rest of of the douchebaggery would have sailed through Congress in a few months. But it didn't, it isn't, and it won't. Why? Because Republicans have party division problems? Next time you decide to post what you see on MSNBC...remember that while those people are lemmings, not all of them are dumb lemmings. No, the smart ones see the cliff coming. The only way to avoid dealing with the fact that the cliff is coming, is to try and invent/exaggerate problems for somebody else, and talk about them. So, yeah, now instead of acknowledging that there is a serious chance that their party is about go off the rails, the effects of which may last for 20 years, they are trying to talk about something, anything, else. Today, it happens to be "Reagan would be a Democrat" Ok, let's see. 1. Reagan was pro gun control. 2. He was pro-choice before the far right pushed him into a publicly anti-abortion stance. 3. He wasn't homophobic. He supported proposition 6. 4. He supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. So he would have "at least" failed four of those tests and if he couldn't be a Republican, what would he be? Republicans are not Republicans anymore. It's a new party full of crazy ideas and insane people who ignore logic, but it has the same name. Too true! uh....? oh goodness, there is no way I could ever do this justice. start reading dailykos or something, i'm sure in a few years you'll be caught up to all of the major items. this is 4 minutes of research... -Obama is an elitist muslim born in Kenya who goes to a Christian church run by an extremist. -Death Panels -Thinking Sarah Palin is qualified to be President -The oxymoron of standing by the Patriot Act yet making the message of the party be "we don't want government in our lives" -52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the 2008 Presidential Election for President Barack Obama. -Supporting abstinence education in the face of overwhelming evidence that it leads to increased teen pregnancy -12% of NC GOP think Hawaii is not a state -"Global warming is a hoax" -We are the "party of family values" while Ensign and Sanford cheat on their wives (with the knowledge of other GOPers) -Having 12 years of congress majority to reform health care your way, and complaining when Dems finally decide to do something -Michelle Bachman: "As you know, Russia, China, Brazil, India, South Africa, many nations have lined up now and have called for an international global currency, a One World currency" -Thinking that FNC is anything except a profit machine ("this station stands for what I believe in" lol, I bet). -Virginia Foxx: "We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay" -Michael Steele: "I am pro-life, always have been, always will be. I tried to present why I am pro-life while recognizing that my mother had a 'choice' before deciding to put me up for adoption." People can think that's nutty all they want but mostly it's spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 All anyone needs to know about Connor is that he believes that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 All anyone needs to know about Connor is that he believes that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. Dig up the quote where I said that. I dare you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Dig up the quote where I said that. I dare you. This is the thermite device that they theorize was used ..http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5698812/description.html Note: Limited movement of the device. Next time you try to deny saying something, you might want to verify that it's not pinned at the top of the page, you friggin' dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Next time you try to deny saying something, you might want to verify that it's not pinned at the top of the page, you friggin' dumbass. I have to admit that his episode on thermite destructive devices was quite possibly one of Bill Nye's best episodes ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Next time you try to deny saying something, you might want to verify that it's not pinned at the top of the page, you friggin' dumbass. Thanks DCT. I just saw his reply. Nice fat slow one over the middle of the plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Well, you got me there, I don't know what I was thinking. It is beyond me why I thought for a second that you dunce's would be able to see the line between someone's existing theory and me stating belief in it. I should know better then to expect intelligence around here, I do forget sometimes. In other words, what you're saying is "next time, please use vaseline" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Well, you got me there, I don't know what I was thinking. It is beyond me why I thought for a second that you dunce's would be able to see the line between someone's existing theory and me stating belief in it. I should know better then to expect intelligence around here, I do forget sometimes. Yeah, because that line between someone saying "the WTC was brought down by explosives" and "someone else said the WTC was brought down by explosives, and I believe it" is awfully distinct. Don't forget the post where you point out that someone "found" thermite in the wreckage, or that the thermite was "still molten" months after 9/11...but I guess you just believe that, you didn't actually say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts