Read what I was talking about.PaCrappa wrote:I don't get it. One minute he wants to talk Carter, the next it's a primary thread. I'm so lost.
Who brought in religion in this thread, you did.Twiddle wrote:It's called "avoiding to actually argue." It works great, until you try to argue with people with an IQ higher than yourself.
Fighter17 wrote:I know one thing Rudy did something similar in NYC to get people to work for money and all the Democrats were pissed. Want money, earn it.
Considering that most conservatives consider FDR the third most evil person ever to walk the earth (after Bill and Hillary), specifically because they accuse him of giving people money who didn't deserve it, I'm not sure how you can reconcile those two statements...also, the argument can easily be made that the progressive mindset is not an excuse for lazy people to get money, but rather a push back against the conservative mindset of "work hard and funnel the profits to the upper classes, but unless you've already inherited wealth or have the connections to get access to it, you're not going to see the benefits of your labor, so don't even bother asking (and if you do, you're a dirty godless commie!)." Conservatives always talk about "letting the people keep their money," and yet continually lower wages, decrease benefits, nix workers' rights and workplace standards, cut social services, and make the lower and middle classes pay far more than their fair share of the tax burden. Believe it or not, there are people out there who want to work for an honest living, but still, incredibly, disagree with this.The last great Democrat president in the 21th century was FDR. The Democrat party is a shadow of its former self.
Out of curiosity, who do you think the last great Republican president was?Out of the last seven presidents only two were Democrats. One who was a peanut farmer who didn't do shit (worse president in the 21th century) and the other who was average at best (and getting a BJ).
No, but your comments about Reganomics in particular (which even Bush Sr. dismissed as ridiculous) suggest that you haven't done the research to form an opinion worth listening to on the subject.So I'm not allow to talk politics because I wasn't born in that time?
Then again you don't follow your parents opinions (which is a good thing in certain cases). There was a reason why they voted for Regan: Carter's era was a nightmare.PaCrappa wrote:And yes, unlike you I was alive during both Carter and Reagan and I can say that Carter sure seemed alot better. Things changed in an easily perceptible negative way when Reagan took office. It seemed pretty obvious even though I was young. My parents voted for Reagan.
Who fucking cares about what the world thinks about Republicans/Democrats.I'm glad that one of our international members mentioned the FACT that the rest of the world always likes our democrats better. Which might be a good thing since the rest of the world definitely isn't impressed right now.
I'm in the minority when it comes to FDR. His policies were mostly *gasps* Socialist *gasps* but at the time it was needed. Hoover was a good man, but his philosophy was totally different.BulletMagnet wrote:Considering that most conservatives consider FDR the third most evil person ever to walk the earth (after Bill and Hillary), specifically because they accuse him of giving people money who didn't deserve it, I'm not sure how you can reconcile those two statements...also, the argument can easily be made that the progressive mindset is not an excuse for lazy people to get money, but rather a push back against the conservative mindset of "work hard and funnel the profits to the upper classes, but unless you've already inherited wealth or have the connections to get access to it, you're not going to see the benefits of your labor, so don't even bother asking (and if you do, you're a dirty godless commie!)." Conservatives always talk about "letting the people keep their money," and yet continually lower wages, decrease benefits, nix workers' rights and workplace standards, cut social services, and make the lower and middle classes pay far more than their fair share of the tax burden. Believe it or not, there are people out there who want to work for an honest living, but still, incredibly, disagree with this.
OK, who cares. You know I mean Democrats.Also, despite your claim to not be a Republican, I couldn't help but notice that you've taken on the Limbaugh-esque habit of referring to it as the "Democrat party," and leaving off the last two letters, despite repeated requests to Limbaugh and others to refer to it by its proper name.
Yes, but he's no Saint.Out of curiosity, who do you think the last great Republican president was?
Saint Reagan?
No, but your comments about Reganomics in particular (which even Bush Sr. dismissed as ridiculous) suggest that you haven't done the research to form an opinion worth listening to on the subject.
How considerate of you.Fighter17 wrote:Who fucking cares about what the world thinks about Republicans/Democrats.
And, in some cases, really tough on them.Fighter17 wrote:We Americans choose the person who will take America to the right direction (it can be either a Democrat or a Republican). If the whole world doesn't like who we choose then then tough on them.
I can't find the exact quote for it, but I think Carter left on Voyager a message which had a passage about surpassing the age of nations and become one large global community. Surely you aren't on the same wavelength...Fighter17 wrote:World Opinions shouldn't never affect our choosing of the next president. Choose a person who you think will take America to the right direction, not the People of Germany.
The Frenchman wants to make himself feel superior by trying to fan the flames of the stereotype that Americans are stupid, while only furthering the stereotype that most people from France are enormous dickheads, and confirming his intellectual inferiority to those of us based in reality. Interesting.djvinc wrote:Now a few questions for american people : based on what criteria do you choose a proper candidate/president ?
Is that the speeches on TV (I would think that the target of such speeches are poorly informed people and/or specific communitites/lobbies) ?
Or is it the buzz in the press ?
Do the spectacular light-and-sound shows involving the candidates really influence people ?
Is it their performance and ability to behave smartly in various talk-shaws ?
I see the pieces of the puzzle but don't know how they fit together.
OK and Bill had a BJ as President.Neon wrote:F17: You've clearly bought into the Glenn Beck/Limbaugh phenomenon hook, line, and sinker, but you do realize that these guys have the easiest jobs in the world, right? They get paid to run their mouths three hours a day, during which they call politicians (only liberal ones) on their bullshit, and pull glorious theories of how the world should be run out of their asses while making it sound convincing, whether or not said theories have any basis in reality. You do realize that Limbaugh is a former drug addict, right? They don't even buy into their own bullshit. The worst part is, Rush (dunno about Glennie) isn't even qualified to do what he does. It's not like Limbaugh has two Ph.D.'s from Harvard in political science and international relations, or something. He's just some fat asshole whose family owned a few radio stations and gave him airtime (how's that for up-by-the-bootstraps, eh?). Don't get me started on Bill O'Reilly.
So? What bearing does any of this have on what I said? More people listening to him than less-established broadcasters and Bill Clinton being a naughty boy doesn't make any difference in the least.Fighter17 wrote:OK and Bill had a BJ as President.Neon wrote:F17: You've clearly bought into the Glenn Beck/Limbaugh phenomenon hook, line, and sinker, but you do realize that these guys have the easiest jobs in the world, right? They get paid to run their mouths three hours a day, during which they call politicians (only liberal ones) on their bullshit, and pull glorious theories of how the world should be run out of their asses while making it sound convincing, whether or not said theories have any basis in reality. You do realize that Limbaugh is a former drug addict, right? They don't even buy into their own bullshit. The worst part is, Rush (dunno about Glennie) isn't even qualified to do what he does. It's not like Limbaugh has two Ph.D.'s from Harvard in political science and international relations, or something. He's just some fat asshole whose family owned a few radio stations and gave him airtime (how's that for up-by-the-bootstraps, eh?). Don't get me started on Bill O'Reilly.
In this case it's better to admit you were a drug addict and got treated (and admit it on the radio) for it then embarrassing yourself to the whole world (worse being the leader of the free world) by getting a BJ under the desk.
If you haven't notice that Rush still pawns the radio time slot with the average of 13 million viewers a day. That's a hell a lot more than the liberal Air America who're having problems staying afloat.
I do listen to Rush when I had the chance. I don't agree with him on everything but I do agree on many point issues. You don't like him and that's fine, but he's still on the radio getting huge ratings and he's getting close to be on the radio for 20 years.
And the liberal radio stations doesn't even come close when it comes to raitings.
I don't know much about Beck so no comment.
Yes it does. You try to imply that Rush was addicted to pills (which he did admitted, not weed or crack, but pills that was suppose to make him feel better. Painkillers which many people love to get addicted on the idea it would make the pain go away).Neon wrote:So? What bearing does any of this have on what I said? More people listening to him than less-established broadcasters and Bill Clinton being a naughty boy doesn't make any difference in the least.
Where is the distinction?(which he did admitted, not weed or crack, but pills that was suppose to make him feel better
But unlike many drug addicts he's affluent and was given ample oppurtunity to succeed. What's his excuse? I'm not impressed that he decided to kick the habit after realizing he was a rich white guy.But unlike many drug addicts he stop the habit and went for treatment himself.
Why violence?Neon wrote:Let me put this in a way you could better understand: My dad is stronger, taller, and meaner than your dad. My dad would beat up your dad in a fight, even with one arm tied behind his back, because he's that fucking NiNj4. I bet he could beat up any older brothers you have, also. He's also a liberal, so I've just totally won this argument.
He said on oath that he'll always tell the truth.Neon wrote:You still have yet to link the connection between Bill Clinton lying and Rush Limbaugh abusing drugs. The point being made was that Rush is a hypocrite. Bill Clinton could jump off a bridge and that would still be true.
EDWARDS: I will pull all offensive military personnel out of Iraq within the first year of my Presidency.not Edwards, not ANY of them.
If the most powerful man in the world can't get a blow job, then who can?for it then embarrassing yourself to the whole world (worse being the leader of the free world) by getting a BJ under the desk.
I will tell you like I tell my wife: a blow job is not sex. It doesn't count (against my allotment for the week).He said on oath that he'll always tell the truth.
Well he didn't. He said he didn't lie but he did.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
It's coming from someone not his wife.GaijinPunch wrote:If the most powerful man in the world can't get a blow job, then who can?
In America a BJ is sex. Oral Sex, Anal Sex, etc. If you disagree with it, fine. But it's still a sexual act.I will tell you like I tell my wife: a blow job is not sex. It doesn't count (against my allotment for the week).
Fine, one of the other goobers that has no chance at getting nominated would.GaijinPunch wrote:EDWARDS: I will pull all offensive military personnel out of Iraq within the first year of my Presidency.not Edwards, not ANY of them.
Hmm.... yeah, he's right on line with McCain.
Regardless of your moral standing, adultery is not a crime.It's coming from someone not his wife.
Where is a blowjob defined as "sexual relations". It's indeed a gray area. I would've lied through my teeth the whole way through. Anybody would have. Shit... our most famous president of recent history was a womanizer.to be fair, he did say "sexual relations". so he did lie.
The flaw in your statement is that you're grouping ALL of them together. Edwards is the far left on the issue. McCain, the very far right. The others are in the middle. There's no "right answer" but a "prolonged presence in Iraq" which McCain seems to favor, is definitely a wrong one.Fine, one of the other goobers that has no chance at getting nominated would.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
